Quantcast
The Moderator Thread

Forums - Website Topics - The Moderator Thread

Barkley said:
COKTOE said:

@CGI-Quality Not sure if you accidentally referenced the wrong post in your ban note for Klaudkill, he edited it after the initial infraction, or I've missed something in my morning stupor.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9039301

This is the post he got banned for: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9039331

Somehow he got unbanned after 2 hours, so the reinstated ban references the wrong post.

Nah, the second moderation referenced the original post, but when I hit submit, it glitched to his most recent thread. A glitch that sometimes happens with the new system in place.

As for the discussion on o_O.Q's thread, it should have indeed been locked. A misstep for sure and I appreciate the attention brought to it. Also, I'm going to review morenoingrato's moderation, because while I get it, I also see why he was lead to saying what he did.



                                                                                                                                            

Barkley said:
COKTOE said:

@CGI-Quality Not sure if you accidentally referenced the wrong post in your ban note for Klaudkill, he edited it after the initial infraction, or I've missed something in my morning stupor.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9039301

This is the post he got banned for: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9039331

Somehow he got unbanned after 2 hours, so the reinstated ban references the wrong post.

Aaah. Thank you.



Chinese food for breakfast

 

CGI-Quality said:
Barkley said:

This is the post he got banned for: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9039331

Somehow he got unbanned after 2 hours, so the reinstated ban references the wrong post.

Nah, the second moderation referenced the original post, but when I hit submit, it glitched to his most recent thread. A glitch that sometimes happens with the new system in place.

As for the discussion on o_O.Q's thread, it should have indeed been locked. A misstep for sure and I appreciate the attention brought to it. Also, I'm going to review morenoingrato's moderation, because while I get it, I also see why he was lead to saying what he did.

Aaaah again. Thanks for the explanation.



Chinese food for breakfast

 

Going by the rules, Rol should get a 14 day ban for heavy backseat moderating.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

RolStoppable said:

Conclusion

The appropriate course of action now is to undo morenoingrato's ban. Overturn the moderation and don't hold it against him in the future. Nobody else in the thread gets moderated; if it happened while I was writing this, treat it the same way as morenoingrato's case. The only person you have to moderate is o_O.Q with 14 ban days or more.

The appropriate course of action is not up for you to decide.

You can make suggestions, but you don't get to tell the mod team in it's entirety what to do, we don't have to do a thing.

Instead you can be constructive in other ways, let us know about discrepancies, let us know if something is unfair, but don't start dictating terms and conditions.



Pemalite said:
RolStoppable said:

Conclusion

The appropriate course of action now is to undo morenoingrato's ban. Overturn the moderation and don't hold it against him in the future. Nobody else in the thread gets moderated; if it happened while I was writing this, treat it the same way as morenoingrato's case. The only person you have to moderate is o_O.Q with 14 ban days or more.

The appropriate course of action is not up for you to decide.

You can make suggestions, but you don't get to tell the mod team in it's entirety what to do, we don't have to do a thing.

Instead you can be constructive in other ways, let us know about discrepancies, let us know if something is unfair, but don't start dictating terms and conditions.

You are correct that the mod team doesn't have to do a thing. If the team is fine with having a bad reputation, you can go against my suggestions.

morenoingrato's moderation has not been overturned, so that's a clear statement by the mod team that it didn't see any faults with the moderation that was issued.

The results of my post have been that morenoingrato had to sit through a 3-day-ban for flaming regardless (his post was merely stating the obvious) while o_O.Q with his extremely long history of creating troll threads and troll posts to lure people into lengthy obnoxious arguments gets to serve a 3-day-ban for trolling. These are the results of the mod team already reviewing the case, not an initially rushed decision-making.

I will call those results an inappropriate course of action because the applied punishment to the involved people isn't even remotely close to fair. Not with the approach of robotic application of the progressive moderation system, let alone a common sense approach.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

I dont get why everyone focus lies with the irrevant part or rols posts, then again that maybe the only bad part of his post thus why some love to jump on it.

His initial assesment is valid, but it looks like he is talking in a room full of people with earplugs



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

RolStoppable said:

You are correct that the mod team doesn't have to do a thing. If the team is fine with having a bad reputation, you can go against my suggestions.

Your suggestions aren't the only course of action that can or will be taken... And to assume your view is the only correct one is incorrect.

RolStoppable said:

morenoingrato's moderation has not been overturned, so that's a clear statement by the mod team that it didn't see any faults with the moderation that was issued.

Not really.

RolStoppable said:

I will call those results an inappropriate course of action because the applied punishment to the involved people isn't even remotely close to fair. Not with the approach of robotic application of the progressive moderation system, let alone a common sense approach.

Are you suggesting that the mod-team lacks common sense?

kirby007 said:
I dont get why everyone focus lies with the irrevant part or rols posts, then again that maybe the only bad part of his post thus why some love to jump on it.

His initial assesment is valid, but it looks like he is talking in a room full of people with earplugs

Rol is a big boy. He barks loudly... So he can defend himself.

Validity or not, you don't see the discussions that are had behind closed doors... So it's a bit of a false assertion to assume that everyone is wearing earplugs.



Pemalite said:
RolStoppable said:

You are correct that the mod team doesn't have to do a thing. If the team is fine with having a bad reputation, you can go against my suggestions.

Your suggestions aren't the only course of action that can or will be taken... And to assume your view is the only correct one is incorrect.

RolStoppable said:

morenoingrato's moderation has not been overturned, so that's a clear statement by the mod team that it didn't see any faults with the moderation that was issued.

Not really.

RolStoppable said:

I will call those results an inappropriate course of action because the applied punishment to the involved people isn't even remotely close to fair. Not with the approach of robotic application of the progressive moderation system, let alone a common sense approach.

Are you suggesting that the mod-team lacks common sense?

1. I don't think that my suggestions are the only correct way. There are usually multiple ways to handle something in an appropriate manner and there are nuances for each way too. What's certain is that the mod team did not act in a manner that is appropriate for the case at hand.

2. That's an empty answer. You didn't like what I said, but you have no explanation why you disagree.

3. In the case at hand, yes, the mod team lacks common sense. Not only in the actions that have been taken, but also in the way that you go about this and contest it. It gives me the impression that you try to bait me and then apply the "don't call a spade a spade" rule in order to attain some sort of victory. You cut my previous post into pieces to respond individually, but you entirely omitted this paragraph:

RolStoppable said:

The results of my post have been that morenoingrato had to sit through a 3-day-ban for flaming regardless (his post was merely stating the obvious) while o_O.Q with his extremely long history of creating troll threads and troll posts to lure people into lengthy obnoxious arguments gets to serve a 3-day-ban for trolling. These are the results of the mod team already reviewing the case, not an initially rushed decision-making.

That was a response to your statement that I should let the mod team know when there are discrepancies or something is unfair. That was the most important part of my post and therefore the one that should have been addressed.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

I've discussed the matter with morenoingrato. We reached a reasonable conclusion on the matter. So, as I noted, it was a misstep to not have acted sooner, but things have been dealt with. So, all parties (moderators included) are to move on now.