Quantcast
The Moderator Thread

Forums - Website Topics - The Moderator Thread

COKTOE said:
vivster said:

You can find closed threads by going through your post history. Or if you know with which other threads it was posted you can just guess the thread ID and edit it in the address bar. They're sequential.

You can no longer find locked threads by looking at your post history. They are now removed from both post history and the buddy. The only ways to find them, aside your secondary method, are to search for the op, and go to his/her threads, or alternatively, simply go to "browse members", and the locked thread will be visible in your buddy on that page. For now at least.

So they remove posts from locked threads but not the threads themselves in the thread history? That's weirdly specific. But that other thing is pretty cool, gonna try to remember that.



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

Around the Network

The issue you guys are discussing is actually not a moderator one. Not even Head Mods. I believe Talon is doing work with that.



                                                                                                                                            

I'd like to post here to check the grounds on why I've been banned.

I was once banned before and complained to the moderator via PM, but I never got an answer, not even to say "shut up". So I'm afraid I'm going to send him a PM and not get any reply. I was banned by Bristow9091 on the grounds that I "attacked the Nintendo fanbase". He also said that I should, in the future, avoid posting on Nintendo threads. He also mentioned that my posts, and of course the post in question, is "not constructive".

This is my post:
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9026388

I say that Nintendo fans don't care about third party AAA games but they get excited about them as soon as they get third party AAA games and celebrate how Nintendo does have third party AAA games.

How is that an attack?

Besides, other members posted things that don't look really constructive about EA and they didn't get any moderation, such as:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9026806
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9026759
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9025258
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9026464

-- One said that "EA is ALL about exploitation"

Can I say that "Nintendo is ALL about exploitation" without being moderated?

I once said that on Nintendo, games that are old and cheap on other consoles get re-released on Nintendo platforms anyway, being far expensive and nobody complains. and I got moderated for attacking Nintendo (That happened last year if I'm not mistaken).

We can say that a company is all about exploitation, but I'm sure I'd be moderated if I said that Nintendo is all about exploitation.


-- The other says that "EA is all about gambling" and it EA would trash Nintendo's image

Could I post that Nintendo is all about gambling in that negative sense without being moderated on VGC?


-- The other posts "EA is lazy and want the path of least resistance to money"

Is this a constructive post? Could I change EA for Nintendo, post the same single sentence and not get moderated round here?


-- Other posts: All the Nintendo fans I know hate EA and refuse to buy their games

Except that it's said "fans I know", it's basically a general opinion about Nintendo fans. It's said that Nintendo fans hate EA.

Why would they hate EA? Can I say Nintendo fans hate AAA third party games without being moderated? Probably not. Can I say they hate EA? I guess yes.



Unless you help me being less confused about Bristow9091 reasoning, I'd say that he's been biased and used a disproportionate moderation against me.

I also feel that Nintendo is a protected brand on VGChartz, because I see, even though I haven't a list of those posts as evidence, many attacks, negative comments and jokes against many groups and companies without any moderation, while against Nintendo it's almost never tolerated.

I bet I can post "PS doesn't have many quality games and the fans buy it anyway", and it's just an opinion, but if I say things like "Nintendo games are too expensive and Nintendo fans buy it anyway" (which is an opinion that I have) I'll be moderated for sure. I can even try doing it now and check my 1 week ban later on.



My Total Sales prediction for PS4 by the end of 2021: 110m+

When PS4 will hit 100m consoles sold: Before Christmas 2019

There were three ravens sat on a tree / They were as blacke as they might be / The one of them said to his mate, Where shall we our breakfast take?


0D0 said:
I'd like to post here to check the grounds on why I've been banned.

I was once banned before and complained to the moderator via PM, but I never got an answer, not even to say "shut up". So I'm afraid I'm going to send him a PM and not get any reply. I was banned by Bristow9091 on the grounds that I "attacked the Nintendo fanbase". He also said that I should, in the future, avoid posting on Nintendo threads. He also mentioned that my posts, and of course the post in question, is "not constructive".

This is my post:
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9026388

I say that Nintendo fans don't care about third party AAA games but they get excited about them as soon as they get third party AAA games and celebrate how Nintendo does have third party AAA games.

How is that an attack?

Besides, other members posted things that don't look really constructive about EA and they didn't get any moderation, such as:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9026806
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9026759
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9025258
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9026464

-- One said that "EA is ALL about exploitation"

Can I say that "Nintendo is ALL about exploitation" without being moderated?

I once said that on Nintendo, games that are old and cheap on other consoles get re-released on Nintendo platforms anyway, being far expensive and nobody complains. and I got moderated for attacking Nintendo (That happened last year if I'm not mistaken).

We can say that a company is all about exploitation, but I'm sure I'd be moderated if I said that Nintendo is all about exploitation.


-- The other says that "EA is all about gambling" and it EA would trash Nintendo's image

Could I post that Nintendo is all about gambling in that negative sense without being moderated on VGC?


-- The other posts "EA is lazy and want the path of least resistance to money"

Is this a constructive post? Could I change EA for Nintendo, post the same single sentence and not get moderated round here?


-- Other posts: All the Nintendo fans I know hate EA and refuse to buy their games

Except that it's said "fans I know", it's basically a general opinion about Nintendo fans. It's said that Nintendo fans hate EA.

Why would they hate EA? Can I say Nintendo fans hate AAA third party games without being moderated? Probably not. Can I say they hate EA? I guess yes.



Unless you help me being less confused about Bristow9091 reasoning, I'd say that he's been biased and used a disproportionate moderation against me.

I also feel that Nintendo is a protected brand on VGChartz, because I see, even though I haven't a list of those posts as evidence, many attacks, negative comments and jokes against many groups and companies without any moderation, while against Nintendo it's almost never tolerated.

I bet I can post "PS doesn't have many quality games and the fans buy it anyway", and it's just an opinion, but if I say things like "Nintendo games are too expensive and Nintendo fans buy it anyway" (which is an opinion that I have) I'll be moderated for sure. I can even try doing it now and check my 1 week ban later on.

Having looked at the situation, I can understand some of the gripe, but I also see why it lead to a moderation. I'm not going to detail your history, but some of it does contain specific infractions related to Nintendo (and/or its fans).

Take these words from your previous moderation as an example: "I'm not claiming anything about lacking variety and nothing to play. I was talking about myself. It offers nothing to play FOR ME. Damm, You're the Nintendo warrior all the time, relax. You're quite annoying to be honest. And, no you're absolutely wrong. All in all, Nintendo has so many draughts, it's not even a joke anymore. Since Wii days. Every year, Nintendo has huge slow periods of 4 to 5 months. That's me claming now.

Nintendo is the queen, king and lord of draughts". 

In regards to that specific topic, what you posted was antagonistic, inflammatory, and off-topic. The bold part(s) are especially bad. I personally don't get the need for stuff like that. Regardless, it added a mark to your history, and because it was recent, it carries that much more weight as a result.

Your latest post is another generalization of Nintendo fans. Throwing in the "ps stuff can kiss my ***" (as a continued means to highlight Nintendo fans in a generalized light) just capped it off. It was unnecessary. The posts you quoted, while borderline in some cases, don't carry the weight nor history of yours. I agree that no company should see any form of unwarranted attack, but context is key here.

Now, I have seen others say that we are protective of certain brands (Nintendo often leads this), and it may need a closer look from us, but all that is a side step to your specific situation. I get that you are frustrated, but the moderation stands on the basis of the sum of all parts involved. 

Last edited by CGI-Quality - on 24 June 2019

                                                                                                                                            

CGI-Quality said:
0D0 said:
I'd like to post here to check the grounds on why I've been banned.

I was once banned before and complained to the moderator via PM, but I never got an answer, not even to say "shut up". So I'm afraid I'm going to send him a PM and not get any reply. I was banned by Bristow9091 on the grounds that I "attacked the Nintendo fanbase". He also said that I should, in the future, avoid posting on Nintendo threads. He also mentioned that my posts, and of course the post in question, is "not constructive".

This is my post:
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9026388

I say that Nintendo fans don't care about third party AAA games but they get excited about them as soon as they get third party AAA games and celebrate how Nintendo does have third party AAA games.

How is that an attack?

Besides, other members posted things that don't look really constructive about EA and they didn't get any moderation, such as:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9026806
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9026759
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9025258
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9026464

-- One said that "EA is ALL about exploitation"

Can I say that "Nintendo is ALL about exploitation" without being moderated?

I once said that on Nintendo, games that are old and cheap on other consoles get re-released on Nintendo platforms anyway, being far expensive and nobody complains. and I got moderated for attacking Nintendo (That happened last year if I'm not mistaken).

We can say that a company is all about exploitation, but I'm sure I'd be moderated if I said that Nintendo is all about exploitation.


-- The other says that "EA is all about gambling" and it EA would trash Nintendo's image

Could I post that Nintendo is all about gambling in that negative sense without being moderated on VGC?


-- The other posts "EA is lazy and want the path of least resistance to money"

Is this a constructive post? Could I change EA for Nintendo, post the same single sentence and not get moderated round here?


-- Other posts: All the Nintendo fans I know hate EA and refuse to buy their games

Except that it's said "fans I know", it's basically a general opinion about Nintendo fans. It's said that Nintendo fans hate EA.

Why would they hate EA? Can I say Nintendo fans hate AAA third party games without being moderated? Probably not. Can I say they hate EA? I guess yes.



Unless you help me being less confused about Bristow9091 reasoning, I'd say that he's been biased and used a disproportionate moderation against me.

I also feel that Nintendo is a protected brand on VGChartz, because I see, even though I haven't a list of those posts as evidence, many attacks, negative comments and jokes against many groups and companies without any moderation, while against Nintendo it's almost never tolerated.

I bet I can post "PS doesn't have many quality games and the fans buy it anyway", and it's just an opinion, but if I say things like "Nintendo games are too expensive and Nintendo fans buy it anyway" (which is an opinion that I have) I'll be moderated for sure. I can even try doing it now and check my 1 week ban later on.

Having looked at the situation, I can understand some of the gripe, but I also see why it lead to a moderation. I'm not going to detail your history, but some of it does contain specific infractions related to Nintendo (and/or its fans).

Take these words from your previous moderation as an example: "I'm not claiming anything about lacking variety and nothing to play. I was talking about myself. It offers nothing to play FOR ME. Damm, You're the Nintendo warrior all the time, relax. You're quite annoying to be honest. And, no you're absolutely wrong. All in all, Nintendo has so many draughts, it's not even a joke anymore. Since Wii days. Every year, Nintendo has huge slow periods of 4 to 5 months. That's me claming now.

Nintendo is the queen, king and lord of draughts". 

In regards to that specific topic, what you posted was antagonistic, inflammatory, and off-topic. The bold part(s) are especially bad. I personally don't get the need for stuff like that. Regardless, it added a mark to your history, and because it was recent, it carries that much more weight as a result.

Your latest post is another generalization of Nintendo fans. Throwing in the "ps stuff can kiss my ***" (as a continued means to highlight Nintendo fans in a generalized light) just capped it off. It was unnecessary. The posts you quoted, while borderline in some cases, don't carry the weight nor history of yours. I agree that no company should see any form of unwarranted attack, but context is key here.

Now, I have seen others say that we are protective of certain brands (Nintendo often leads this), and it may need a closer look from us, but all that is a side step to your specific situation. I get that you are frustrated, but the moderation stands on the basis of the sum of all parts involved. 

So, is it about my history, right?

Two questions:

If I get antagonistic against EA, I'd do ok so far, since I don't have any previous ban with inflammatory content against EA? If I post that "EA is the queen, king and lord of draughts", would it be ok, since I don't have any history of antagonism with EA?

If I say that Nintendo is lazy and all about gambling and making money, would I get banned because of my history? That's why those didn't get moderation when they said the same about EA?

About the protective of certain brands, I'm not side stepping. I'm just accusing VGC team of moderators of being protective of certain brands, particularly Nintendo. Your next reply might be "Do you have any evidence?". No, I haven't listed them, but yes, it's a thing that absolutely need a closer look from VGC leaders.

Last edited by 0D0 - on 24 June 2019

My Total Sales prediction for PS4 by the end of 2021: 110m+

When PS4 will hit 100m consoles sold: Before Christmas 2019

There were three ravens sat on a tree / They were as blacke as they might be / The one of them said to his mate, Where shall we our breakfast take?


Around the Network
0D0 said:
CGI-Quality said:

Having looked at the situation, I can understand some of the gripe, but I also see why it lead to a moderation. I'm not going to detail your history, but some of it does contain specific infractions related to Nintendo (and/or its fans).

Take these words from your previous moderation as an example: "I'm not claiming anything about lacking variety and nothing to play. I was talking about myself. It offers nothing to play FOR ME. Damm, You're the Nintendo warrior all the time, relax. You're quite annoying to be honest. And, no you're absolutely wrong. All in all, Nintendo has so many draughts, it's not even a joke anymore. Since Wii days. Every year, Nintendo has huge slow periods of 4 to 5 months. That's me claming now.

Nintendo is the queen, king and lord of draughts". 

In regards to that specific topic, what you posted was antagonistic, inflammatory, and off-topic. The bold part(s) are especially bad. I personally don't get the need for stuff like that. Regardless, it added a mark to your history, and because it was recent, it carries that much more weight as a result.

Your latest post is another generalization of Nintendo fans. Throwing in the "ps stuff can kiss my ***" (as a continued means to highlight Nintendo fans in a generalized light) just capped it off. It was unnecessary. The posts you quoted, while borderline in some cases, don't carry the weight nor history of yours. I agree that no company should see any form of unwarranted attack, but context is key here.

Now, I have seen others say that we are protective of certain brands (Nintendo often leads this), and it may need a closer look from us, but all that is a side step to your specific situation. I get that you are frustrated, but the moderation stands on the basis of the sum of all parts involved. 

So, is it about my history, right?

Two questions:

If I get antagonistic against EA, I'd do ok so far, since I don't have any previous ban with inflammatory content against EA? If I post that "EA is the queen, king and lord of draughts", would it be ok, since I don't have any history of antagonism with EA?

If I say that Nintendo is lazy and all about gambling and making money, would I get banned because of my history? That's why those didn't get moderation when they said the same about EA?

About the protective of certain brands, I'm not side stepping. I'm just accusing VGC team of moderators of being protective of certain brands, particularly Nintendo. Your next reply might be "Do you have any evidence?". No, I haven't listed them, but yes, it's a thing that absolutely need a closer look from VGC leaders.

I'm hesitant to butt-in, but I'm quite sure comments regarding the platform holders, Xbox, Playstation, and Nintendo, are held to a different standard than comments made about developers and publishers. If for no other reason than said comments tend to be much less likely to rile people up and create tension and conflict. That's not to say that the big 3 can't be scrutinized. How it's done, and who's doing it counts, as does the validity of the scrutiny.



Chinese food for breakfast

 

You cant post shit about sony or sony fans here, it will get you banned just aswell so your whole point you actually want to make is invalid



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

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

Imagine bargaining for rights to troll a fanbase...



kirby007 said:
You cant post shit about sony or sony fans here, it will get you banned just aswell so your whole point you actually want to make is invalid

You're as patronising and rude as usual and might prove my point that the ones who work for this site are not a serious sort.

PortisheadBiscuit said:
Imagine bargaining for rights to troll a fanbase...

Is this a real reply? Is this sort of joke tolerated as a reply to my questions or just to try to make me angry?



My Total Sales prediction for PS4 by the end of 2021: 110m+

When PS4 will hit 100m consoles sold: Before Christmas 2019

There were three ravens sat on a tree / They were as blacke as they might be / The one of them said to his mate, Where shall we our breakfast take?


0D0 said:
I'd like to post here to check the grounds on why I've been banned.

I was once banned before and complained to the moderator via PM, but I never got an answer, not even to say "shut up". So I'm afraid I'm going to send him a PM and not get any reply. I was banned by Bristow9091 on the grounds that I "attacked the Nintendo fanbase". He also said that I should, in the future, avoid posting on Nintendo threads. He also mentioned that my posts, and of course the post in question, is "not constructive".

This is my post:
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9026388

I say that Nintendo fans don't care about third party AAA games but they get excited about them as soon as they get third party AAA games and celebrate how Nintendo does have third party AAA games.

How is that an attack?

Without getting into the comments you bring up about EA (for now), I just wanted to address the post you made that got you banned. Because I read it before, as we discussed it among the mods.

In that comment you're depicting people in a negative way, right? Calling them out for being hypocrites. (Saying they don't care about AAA, and then pre-ordering AAA games when they get them on their system.)
Obviously you know that no one likes being called a hypocrite, so the comment is meant to strike a nerve.

Okay. That in itself is not a problem. If someone deserves to be criticized or called out for something, then it's ok to do it in a constructive manner. And the way you did it could have been constructive, if you had for example said "Hiku and CGI-Quality said they had no interest in Halo Infinite. But now that it's coming to PS5, they pre-ordered it."

The problem is that you said "Nintendo fans". That means every Nintendo fan has a reason to be bothered by it, as intended. Even if they feel like it doesn't apply to them, they may feel that they/not many/ no one here said the thing you claimed. And that it's an unfair characterization of them.

If one Sony fan says something stupid, should people go "Sony fans be like.."?
No, they should specify that person when writing the comment.

If someone asks you "Who are you referring to?" the answer is commonly "I don't remember. Someone... on some other site that you can't verify, that has nothing to do with VGC."
But the only people reading your comments, and potentially being bothered by them (as intended) are VGC users.

That's why it's important when making negative comments designed to annoy or attack people, to make it clear if you are referring to someone who would be reading them or not.
Basically, avoid generalizations under those circumstances.

Last edited by Hiku - on 24 June 2019