Mods

Ok, this has gone over the top.

I tried to shut up and forget all the mod stuff, hoping it would settle, but it just fucking won't. Why was "REN BANNING" locked? "By request"? It followed policy. And why was "ILL BE BACK" locked. Does the policy state anything against off-topic posts? No. It doesn't. Min also seems to be plainly moderating only what he feels like. He goes to a topic which should clearly be in general chat, and says some shit about how he doesn't want to. Min stated to me in IRC today that he didn't care about the community and that he doesn't respect our opinions. So my question is: If he doesn't care, then why is he an op?

Min also stated that he locked "DELETED THREADS?" because it was irrelevant, which he claims is "innapropriate". Does this mean that mods can now label anything they want to "innapropriate? If so, then this is a SERIOUS loophole which completely defeats the whole idea of the policy.

P.S. Yes, this belongs in the Winbolo.net>General forum, because it has to do with .net. So don't move this to general chat, because that ain't its damn place.

We've been over this before, actually. And regardless of who's right or wrong here... what's the big deal? Complaining about a few threads that were locked (with no real concrete proof of why they shouldn't have been locked) is a prime example of making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Hint: My post has 3 points.

DANTHEMAN! wrote:

Min stated to me in IRC today that he didn't care about the community and that he doesn't respect our opinions. So my question is: If he doesn't care, then why is he an op?

If he doesn't care; and if he doesn't respect, but STILL moderates fairly, then what's the big deal? He seems plenty prejudice-free to me. All the posts he's locked needed to be locked, imo. You just seem to want to pick fights with him often.

And how can he respect your opinion if you do this:
[19:09] * DTM is now known as minsuxtehcox0rz

:?:

Nova wrote:

We've been over this before, actually. And regardless of who's right or wrong here... what's the big deal? Complaining about a few threads that were locked (with no real concrete proof of why they shouldn't have been locked) is a prime example of making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Hint: My post has 3 points.

No concrete proof why they shouldn't be locked? That would imply that a mod could walk around and say: "I'm locking this post because there is no reason that I shouldn't!" Mods need concrete proof for why they should lock posts. Make sense?

The big deal here is that Min enjoys disrespecting the users of this forum, locking/GCing threads because he doesn't like that particular person and plainly, not following policy. When I saw him put out that policy, I expected it to be followed. And plainly, it isn't being followed, which is one of the sections of the "big deal".

And you say we've been over this before? Well the reason I discontinued other arguements is due to the fact that I thought that all this would settle. But obviously, Min has decided to continue with his idiocy.

3 points are now opposed.

P.S. If you are going to lock a topic Min, why don't you try quoting the policy, and showing the reason for locking?

DANTHEMAN! wrote:

Nova wrote:

We've been over this before, actually. And regardless of who's right or wrong here... what's the big deal? Complaining about a few threads that were locked (with no real concrete proof of why they shouldn't have been locked) is a prime example of making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Hint: My post has 3 points.

No concrete proof why they shouldn't be locked? That would imply that a mod could walk around and say: "I'm locking this post because there is no reason that I shouldn't!" Mods need concrete proof for why they should lock posts. Make sense?

That wasn't what I was getting at. What I was trying to say was that you haven't given a reason for these threads not to be locked that wasn't wishy-washy. Though I guess on some level, I agree with you. Mods should not be allowed to lock whatever they damn well please, but Min hasn't overstepped his bounds that I can recall.

The big deal here is that Min enjoys disrespecting the users of this forum, locking/GCing threads because he doesn't like that particular person and plainly, not following policy. When I saw him put out that policy, I expected it to be followed. And plainly, it isn't being followed, which is one of the sections of the "big deal".

This whole paragraph is really quite flawed. Min enjoys this? He's strutting around the forum because he's one of the big dogs and he can lock whatever he damn well pleases? He's married with three kids, probably has quite a few bills to pay, and is also quite the party animal. Regardless of that, you can hardly say what someone's enjoying or disrespecting or whatever based only upon your impression of them you get over the Internet.

Regardless of whether Min's following policy or not, him locking a few threads really isn't an act of fascist oppression.

And you say we've been over this before? Well the reason I discontinued other arguements is due to the fact that I thought that all this would settle. But obviously, Min has decided to continue with his idiocy.

That doesn't really hold water. Even though your bitchy and ill-supported posts aren't really going to shape policy around here, you thought that if you stopped there'd be a better reaction?

---Nova

Yo Min... on behalf of the community, lock this thread too... it's completely useless.

Nova wrote:

DANTHEMAN! wrote:

Nova wrote:

We've been over this before, actually. And regardless of who's right or wrong here... what's the big deal? Complaining about a few threads that were locked (with no real concrete proof of why they shouldn't have been locked) is a prime example of making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Hint: My post has 3 points.

No concrete proof why they shouldn't be locked? That would imply that a mod could walk around and say: "I'm locking this post because there is no reason that I shouldn't!" Mods need concrete proof for why they should lock posts. Make sense?

That wasn't what I was getting at. What I was trying to say was that you haven't given a reason for these threads not to be locked that wasn't wishy-washy. Though I guess on some level, I agree with you. Mods should not be allowed to lock whatever they damn well please, but Min hasn't overstepped his bounds that I can recall.

The big deal here is that Min enjoys disrespecting the users of this forum, locking/GCing threads because he doesn't like that particular person and plainly, not following policy. When I saw him put out that policy, I expected it to be followed. And plainly, it isn't being followed, which is one of the sections of the "big deal".

This whole paragraph is really quite flawed. Min enjoys this? He's strutting around the forum because he's one of the big dogs and he can lock whatever he damn well pleases? He's married with three kids, probably has quite a few bills to pay, and is also quite the party animal. Regardless of that, you can hardly say what someone's enjoying or disrespecting or whatever based only upon your impression of them you get over the Internet.

Regardless of whether Min's following policy or not, him locking a few threads really isn't an act of fascist oppression.

And you say we've been over this before? Well the reason I discontinued other arguements is due to the fact that I thought that all this would settle. But obviously, Min has decided to continue with his idiocy.

That doesn't really hold water. Even though your bitchy and ill-supported posts aren't really going to shape policy around here, you thought that if you stopped there'd be a better reaction?

---Nova

Not showing a reason for the threads not to be locked? That's like murdering somebody and then saying "why not?". It's BS.

OK, so when I used the word "enjoyed" I was getting a little carried away. What I was attempting to get at is that Min doesn't care about the community, which he told me himself on IRC, and that he doesn't respect the people of this community. So if he doesn't care about the community, what other reason would he come around here for? Anyway, this point is not necessary to make, considering that it is dwarfed by the above point, but I feel the need to make it because it supports the above statement.

I didn't stop because I thought that it would create a better environment, but I stopped because I thought I started to see the BS fade. I was wrong. So this is why I came back and made this post.

All clear now?

Acro wrote:

DANTHEMAN! wrote:

Min stated to me in IRC today that he didn't care about the community and that he doesn't respect our opinions. So my question is: If he doesn't care, then why is he an op?

If he doesn't care; and if he doesn't respect, but STILL moderates fairly, then what's the big deal? He seems plenty prejudice-free to me. All the posts he's locked needed to be locked, imo. You just seem to want to pick fights with him often.

And how can he respect your opinion if you do this:
[19:09] * DTM is now known as minsuxtehcox0rz

:?:

No no no. My point is that the posts that he locks follow policy, and he does not use the policy to support what he locks. That is my main point in this whole thread.

DANTHEMAN! wrote:

Acro wrote:

DANTHEMAN! wrote:

Min stated to me in IRC today that he didn't care about the community and that he doesn't respect our opinions. So my question is: If he doesn't care, then why is he an op?

If he doesn't care; and if he doesn't respect, but STILL moderates fairly, then what's the big deal? He seems plenty prejudice-free to me. All the posts he's locked needed to be locked, imo. You just seem to want to pick fights with him often.

And how can he respect your opinion if you do this:
[19:09] * DTM is now known as minsuxtehcox0rz

:?:

No no no. My point is that the posts that he locks follow policy, and he does not use the policy to support what he locks. That is my main point in this whole thread.

wELL MY POINT IS THE FACT THAT MY CAPS LOCK IS BEING GAYZOR. ANYWAYS... the WAY THat THIS threaD SHOULD FINISH is MIN LOCKING IT becuZ i sAID so AND dTM... THis IS ActuALLY OnE OF THe FIRSt eDUcatED POSts yoU'VE eveR MADE!!! IMAGEINE THAT. heh, fixed the caps lock. anyway... dan, you gotta grow up and figure out that canada sux. oh yeah... politics are run by the minority, in this case min. whatever he does/says is what happens. whatever happens isn't going to change unless someone is stupid/smart enough to hack WBN...

'nuff said

Jason#8[/u][/b]

now where the fuck did those tags come from?

Jason#8 wrote:

DANTHEMAN! wrote:

Acro wrote:

DANTHEMAN! wrote:

Min stated to me in IRC today that he didn't care about the community and that he doesn't respect our opinions. So my question is: If he doesn't care, then why is he an op?

If he doesn't care; and if he doesn't respect, but STILL moderates fairly, then what's the big deal? He seems plenty prejudice-free to me. All the posts he's locked needed to be locked, imo. You just seem to want to pick fights with him often.

And how can he respect your opinion if you do this:
[19:09] * DTM is now known as minsuxtehcox0rz

:?:

No no no. My point is that the posts that he locks follow policy, and he does not use the policy to support what he locks. That is my main point in this whole thread.

wELL MY POINT IS THE FACT THAT MY CAPS LOCK IS BEING GAYZOR. ANYWAYS... the WAY THat THIS threaD SHOULD FINISH is MIN LOCKING IT becuZ i sAID so AND dTM... THis IS ActuALLY OnE OF THe FIRSt eDUcatED POSts yoU'VE eveR MADE!!! IMAGEINE THAT. heh, fixed the caps lock. anyway... dan, you gotta grow up and figure out that canada sux. oh yeah... politics are run by the minority, in this case min. whatever he does/says is what happens. whatever happens isn't going to change unless someone is stupid/smart enough to hack WBN...

'nuff said

Jason#8[/u][/b]

Try the decaf.

DANTHEMAN! wrote:

Not showing a reason for the threads not to be locked? That's like murdering somebody and then saying "why not?". It's BS.

For it to be a good analogy there's a few parallel elements that need to be had. You can't compare outright no-question-about it murder and the possibility of someone violating policy. Now, instead of dragging this out even further just give us your reasons.

OK, so when I used the word "enjoyed" I was getting a little carried away. What I was attempting to get at is that Min doesn't care about the community, which he told me himself on IRC, and that he doesn't respect the people of this community. So if he doesn't care about the community, what other reason would he come around here for?

You're still getting carried away. How do you know Min doesn't care about the community? That's still quite the assumption. What's more, speaking as a person who doesn't really care about the community, I still don't like to see random shit clogging down something that might actually be useful. I'm still having a hard time believing that this is Min's playground and he's the 6-year-old bully that shaves.

And hell, if you're on such a goddamn high horse about doing good for the community and caring and following policy and respecting other people's opinions and listening to the community try to have at least have one you don't fail at.

---Nova

Nova wrote:

DANTHEMAN! wrote:

Not showing a reason for the threads not to be locked? That's like murdering somebody and then saying "why not?". It's BS.

For it to be a good analogy there's a few parallel elements that need to be had. You can't compare outright no-question-about it murder and the possibility of someone violating policy. Now, instead of dragging this out even further just give us your reasons.

OK, so when I used the word "enjoyed" I was getting a little carried away. What I was attempting to get at is that Min doesn't care about the community, which he told me himself on IRC, and that he doesn't respect the people of this community. So if he doesn't care about the community, what other reason would he come around here for?

You're still getting carried away. How do you know Min doesn't care about the community? That's still quite the assumption. What's more, speaking as a person who doesn't really care about the community, I still don't like to see random shit clogging down something that might actually be useful. I'm still having a hard time believing that this is Min's playground and he's the 6-year-old bully that shaves.

And hell, if you're on such a goddamn high horse about doing good for the community and caring and following policy and respecting other people's opinions and listening to the community try to have at least have one you don't fail at.

---Nova

You stated that I had no reason why those threads shouldn't be locked. I used the anology by showing that your statement was the equivalent of the statement: "Why not?" as an excuse. If you murder somebody and you say "Why not?", do you have an arguement? No. Same thing with locking a post. I don't need a reason to why the post should have been locked, but the locker needs a reason for the post to be locked.

I know Min doesn't care about the community because he told me himself. I think that is proof enough.

No, it's not the equivalent, and I told you why. Murder is clear-cut wrong, locking threads is not necessarily so. And maybe policy does need to be changed so that the mod refers to the policy violation when locking the thread, but even still you haven't backed yourself up. Why shouldn't have the threads been locked?

As for Min telling you directly that he doesn't care about the community I'd like to see that quoted.

You still haven't told me why this is a huge deal, either. A few threads locked, that sure is a fascist regime right there.

I have to side with min... because he helped me fix my printer. So anyways. DTM needs to settle down. for god sakes, it's an internet forum. who cares?

Nova wrote:

No, it's not the equivalent, and I told you why. Murder is clear-cut wrong, locking threads is not necessarily so. And maybe policy does need to be changed so that the mod refers to the policy violation when locking the thread, but even still you haven't backed yourself up. Why shouldn't have the threads been locked?

As for Min telling you directly that he doesn't care about the community I'd like to see that quoted.

No no no. The threads need a reason to be locked. Not a reason not to be locked. I agree that I should not have used the word murder, but perhaps kill. I can't kill somebody without a reason. I can't lock a post without a reason. What you seem to suggest is that I can kill somebody/lock a post as long as there isn't a reason not to. The policy lists the things to be moderated, it doesn't list the things which aren't to be moderated.

I don't keep logs, so I guess you'll have to take my word, which I doubt you will. I guess you win on this one then.

I asked you on irc to provide links to the threads which you feel were locked unfairly, and I would explain why. Since you wouldn't do that there, perhaps you can do it here. Somehow I doubt this will satisfy you though, you have a history of complaining, no matter what. Even if I explain it to you to your satisfaction right now, your going to simply get upset later about something related to your inability to understand simple english. This is really irrelevant, if I did in fact lock a thread that shouldn't have been locked, it can simply be unlocked again, its not the end of the world.

DTM, its time for you to grow up. This isn't a fascist dictatorship, there are rules, and I've been following them.

Min

I'll tell you why those topics were locked. Because they became irrelevant and off topic. Why continure posting under something if its totally irrelavant to the original topic... Honestly DTM, stop trying to start shit here. There's nothing on the forum policy (i think) that states that topics should be locked after they have strayed far from the original subject. HOWEVER...common sense never killed anyone. Hey look at this topic *click* Wait a minute..this has nothing to do with anything. What about this one *click* a post from a topic from a year ago with a new post saying "bump". For fuck sakes buddy just shut up. The topics that were locked didnt have a reason to be locked other than the reasoning of common sense. The ren banning topic was locked..but hey...you were unbanned werent you. So to have a topic dedicated to your defending yourself after being unbanned...doesnt make much sense. Just give it a rest Dan.

DTM: I'm pretty sure everyone is tired of all these mod feuds. Hence why you don't see anyone here complaining except you, and fabolous. If you *PERSONALLY* have a problem with the policy or mod, I think you should email Elvis. I 110% guarrantee you'll be more affective about being heard through email, rather than wbn. I'm pretty sure just about everyone in the community is done with the whole mod policy matter anyway.


Just stopping by to throw in my two cents.

Dan, drop it. It's not worth it.

-DAllen

dan...i know your problem. i got a fix for u. u need a girl friend. just get her to play with your balls a little bit. maybe u would ease up on the whole "rule" aspect of life and have some damn fun.

DANTHEMAN! wrote:

What you seem to suggest is that I can kill somebody/lock a post as long as there isn't a reason not to.

I actually wasn't suggesting anything, all I was asking for were your reasons. But forget all that for now. Why is this such a huge deal? Forget policy, forget disrespect, forget apathy, why are a few locked threads such an atrocity?

I think CF is the REAL atrocity.




just throwing in something that'll speed along the locking of this dumbass thread.

:) :shock: :o :x :P :x :shock: :( :shock: :cry: :oops: :evil: :roll: :D :o :) :shock: :P :oops: :cry: :wink: :twisted: :evil: :) :shock: :o :x :P :x :shock: :( :shock: :cry: :oops: :evil: :roll: :D :o :) :shock: :P :oops: :cry: :wink: :twisted: :evil: :) :shock: :o :x :P :x :shock: :( :shock: :cry: :oops: :evil: :roll: :D :o :) :shock: :P :oops: :cry: :wink: :twisted: :evil: :) :shock: :o :x :P :x :shock: :( :shock: :cry: :oops: :evil: :roll: :D :o :) :shock: :P :oops: :cry: :wink: :twisted: :evil: :) :shock: :o :x :P :x :shock: :( :shock: :cry: :oops: :evil: :roll: :D :o :) :shock: :P :oops: :cry: :wink: :twisted: :evil: :) :shock: :o :x :P :x :shock: :( :shock: :cry: :oops: :evil: :roll: :D :o :) :shock: :P :oops: :cry: :wink: :twisted: :evil: :) :shock: :o :x :P :x :shock: :( :shock: :cry: :oops: :evil: :roll: :D :o :) :shock: :P :oops: :cry: :wink: :twisted: :evil: :) :shock: :o :x :P :x :shock: :( :shock: :cry: :oops: :evil: :roll: :D :o :) :shock: :P :oops: :cry: :wink: :twisted: :evil: :) :shock: :o :x :P :x :shock: :( :shock: :cry: :oops: :evil: :roll: :D :o :) :shock: :P :oops: :cry: :wink: :twisted: :evil: :) :shock: :o :x :P :x :shock: :( :shock: :cry: :oops: :evil: :roll: :D :o :) :shock: :P :oops: :cry: :wink: :twisted: :evil: :) :shock: :o :x :P :x :shock: :( :shock: :cry: :oops: :evil: :roll: :D :o :) :shock: :P :oops: :cry: :wink: :twisted: :evil: :) :shock: :o :x :P :x :shock: :( :shock: :cry: :oops: :evil: :roll: :D :o :) :shock: :P :oops: :cry: :wink: :twisted: :evil: :) :shock: :o :x :P :x :shock: :( :shock: :cry: :oops: :evil: :roll: :D :o :) :shock: :P :oops: :cry: :wink: :twisted: :evil: :) :shock: :o :x :P :x :shock: :( :shock: :cry: :oops: :evil: :roll: :D :o :) :shock: :P :oops: :cry: :wink: :twisted: :evil: :) :shock: :o :x :P :x :shock: :( :shock: :cry: :oops: :evil: :roll: :D :o :) :shock: :P :oops: :cry: :wink: :twisted: :evil: :) :shock: :o :x :P :x :shock: :( :shock: :cry: :oops: :evil: :roll: :D :o :) :shock: :P :oops: :cry: :wink: :twisted: :evil: :) :shock: :o :x :P :x :shock: :( :shock: :cry: :oops: :evil: :roll: :D :o :) :shock: :P :oops: :cry: :wink: :twisted: :evil: :) :shock: :o :x :P :x :shock: :( :shock: :cry: :oops: :evil: :roll: :D :o :) :shock: :P :oops: :cry: :wink: :twisted: :evil: :) :shock: :o :x :P :x :shock: :( :shock: :cry: :oops: :evil: :roll: :D :o :) :shock: :P :oops: :cry: :wink: :twisted: :evil: :) :shock: :o :x :P :x :shock: :( :shock: :cry: :oops: :evil: :roll: :D :o :) :shock: :P :oops: :cry: :wink: :twisted: :evil: :) :shock: :o :x :P :x :shock: :( :shock: :cry: :oops: :evil: :roll: :D :o :) :shock: :P :oops: :cry: :wink: :twisted: :evil: :) :shock: :o :x :P :x :shock: :( :shock: :cry: :oops: :evil: :roll: :D :o :) :shock: :P :oops: :cry: :wink: :twisted: :evil: :) :shock: :o :x :P :x :shock: :( :shock: :cry: :oops: :evil: :roll: :D :o :) :shock: :P :oops: :cry: :wink: :twisted: :evil: :) :shock: :o :x :P :x :shock: :( :shock: :cry: :oops: :evil: :roll: :D :o :) :shock: :P :oops: :cry: :wink: :twisted: :evil: :) :shock: :o :x :P :x :shock: :( :shock: :cry: :oops: :evil: :roll: :D :o :) :shock: :P :oops: :cry: :wink: :twisted: :evil: :) :shock: :o :x :P :x :shock: :( :shock: :cry: :oops: :evil: :roll: :D :o :) :shock: :P :oops: :cry: :wink: :twisted: :evil: :) :shock: :o :x :P :x :shock: :( :shock: :cry: :oops: :evil: :roll: :D :o :) :shock: :P :oops: :cry: :wink: :twisted: :evil: :) :shock: :o :x :P :x :shock: :( :shock: :cry: :oops: :evil: :roll: :D :o :) :shock: :P :oops: :cry: :wink: :twisted: :evil:

If that doesn't get this thread locked... idk what will

Thread locked
Reason: Innappropriate smiley spam detected.

I guess I can just add a nice essay on why the threads locked from now on to sate poor ol' dtm's sensibilities.

Min