By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Website Topics - Does VGChartz have the worst moderators in the world?

Kantor said:
pezus said:
Kantor said:
pezus said:
Kantor said:
Blacksaber said:
They are only horrible for really following through MBP's idea of no cleavage/shirtless guys in avatars.

That wasn't us. That was the mods before us.

That was never even a rule anyway, just an advisory.

You were a mod back then, don't lie! 

So do I have permission to go back to Rocio or what?

Imgur link?

And yes, I was a mod. But most people on the team weren't.

Dafuq, you edited! 

But you said it wasn't a rule anyway ;-P

It's hosted right here on the chartz:

http://www.vgchartz.com/avatars/pezus_158_large.jpg

Go ahead. That's fine.


No it's not



Around the Network

That thread definitely needed to be modded and locked, as does its followup, but I've been banned for some STUPID things. I once got banned for saying I was going to write an article about Final Fantasy XIII, in spite of knowing a lot of people wouldn't like it (the title was goign to be "the real reason Final Fantasy XIII is a terrible game", and it was going to explain why at its core Final Fantasy XIII was indeed a terrible game), and that I'd need a flame shield becuase I expected people to lash out.

I got banned for saying I intended to write an article on a different site that I knew would be unpopular.

I got banned for citing my intentions elsewhere.

I got banned for doing my job.

I also recently got banned for saying that if you felt that shouting loudly meant you won a debate, then you deserve the lesser candidate.

I've also been banned for telling the truth on an issue people are sensitive about. (Religion). I've been banned for having an opinion and not sugarcoating or handling it with kid gloves.

Banning should only be for spammers, trolls, and constantly disruptive people. Not people who have strong opinions. I've been a mod elsewhere, Banning is basically internet jail, and should only be done when banning will actually solve the problem. Banning someone because they have an unpopular opinion and isn't afraid to share it is just dumb. not having tact is not the same thing as being inflammatory. Perhaps we'd all do well to remember that.



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Jay520 said:

I personally wouldn't have locked the thread, but the title was unnecessarily controversial. Saying "dying Vita" instead of "Vita" does nothing to influence the meaning of the question. It's just there to get a reaction. Moreover, we don't know if the Vita is dying or not. Sure it looks like it's dead, but you cannot make presuppositions about things that we don't absolutely know, especially when the responses to that question is so dramatically influenced by that presupposition. It's a loaded question; any response to the question must assume that the Vita is dying, thereby limiting the Vita's chances of passing the Wii.

So, not only is the inclusion of "dying" solely to provoke a hostile reaction, it also makes a presupposition that limits the potential answers, and we cannot say with absolute certainty if "dying" is accurate to begin with. If you're going to make a title so controversial, then there needs be substaintial reasoning behind it. But in this case, I can't think of any decent reasoning to include it. It's unnecessarily controversial.

Again, I wouldn't have locked the thread personally. But it is annoying. The wording is simply unnecessary. It's controversy for the sake of controversy; something we really shouldn't be encouraging. The only possible outcome of including the word is to bait people into a war. If you want to discuss the Vita vs Wii potential sales this holiday, just exclude the word "dying" in the title. In fact, just go ahead and make the thread right now if you were really interested in the discussion, just remove the word "dying." It asks the same question without the presuppositions. You will probably get more interesting responses and a more engaging discussion. But if you insist on using unnecessarily controversial wording, over a more peaceful and potentially thought-provoking wording, then tuff titts to you sir. Just tuff titts.


Honestly Jay, your posts <3

Pretty much my thoughts too.  The line between breaking the rules entirely and making a frustrating post for the sake of being provocative is something I think the mod team do a good job with here.  They shut things down (or at least edit titles) where it's necessary.



As anwer to the thread title: NO



RolStoppable said:
Runa216 said:
That thread definitely needed to be modded and locked, as does its followup, but I've been banned for some STUPID things. I once got banned for saying I was going to write an article about Final Fantasy XIII, in spite of knowing a lot of people wouldn't like it (the title was goign to be "the real reason Final Fantasy XIII is a terrible game", and it was going to explain why at its core Final Fantasy XIII was indeed a terrible game), and that I'd need a flame shield becuase I expected people to lash out.

I got banned for saying I intended to write an article on a different site that I knew would be unpopular.

I got banned for citing my intentions elsewhere.

I got banned for doing my job.

I also recently got banned for saying that if you felt that shouting loudly meant you won a debate, then you deserve the lesser candidate.

I've also been banned for telling the truth on an issue people are sensitive about. (Religion). I've been banned for having an opinion and not sugarcoating or handling it with kid gloves.

Banning should only be for spammers, trolls, and constantly disruptive people. Not people who have strong opinions. I've been a mod elsewhere, Banning is basically internet jail, and should only be done when banning will actually solve the problem. Banning someone because they have an unpopular opinion and isn't afraid to share it is just dumb. not having tact is not the same thing as being inflammatory. Perhaps we'd all do well to remember that.

Interesting. Maybe that's how you see it, but I am quite sure that you are usually flaming people left, right and center everytime you have a strong opinion on a subject and subsequently get banned for it. And let's not forget that your "Writer" tag also gave you more leeway than a regular poster in the past.

Bingo. Runa, you're generally a very good poster, you just tend to come off as insulting when discussing things you don't like.

I treat banning as a behavioral correction tool. If you don't want to get banned again, better yourself as a poster. Many posters seem to have taken that to heart to an extent, because some who had a long rap-sheet in the past are now productive members.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
phenom08 said:

Wow does this site have some of the worst moderators ever?

Here's a good example.

In this forum "who is going to win this xmas? the dead Wii or the dying Vita?"

"I'm going to go ahead and lock this. Referring to the Vita (or any system that isn't on its way out of the market) as "dying" isn't really the way it should really be represented on the site" said by one of our wonderful moderators.

Notice that this moderator not only has no proof what so ever of the Vita not leaving the market soon, notice how he doesn't even mention the Wii being referred to as a dead platform, notice how he throws in an excerpt like "or any system that isn't on its way out" like he knows when any system is on its way out, and last but not least take a look at what his favorite platform is. I rest my case.

You deserve to be banned for this pathetic thread.

Moderated,

-Mr Khan



That title, was just plain trolling. That alone is enough to lock the thread.



pezus said:
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
Blacksaber said:
They are only horrible for really following through MBP's idea of no cleavage/shirtless guys in avatars.


You should have seen Pezus' avatar back in the day.

What about it? :O

heheehehehehehehehehe

Dont play dumb 



Yay!!!

I'd have to say, of all people to post this, phenom08 you are the last to speak. You have a tendency to belittle people and lol at them in conversation (you actually did it to axum ITT). That's typical flamebait. If you actually cared about this site and this community, you wouldn't do that. You may be smart, but you really don't know how to open debate with others. A forum is not just your soapbox, it's a public place for everyone to speak. So being welcoming to discussion and constructive sharing of ideas is fundamental. This is something I'm also working on a lot here, so I'm not saying it in a condescending way.

As for axum, allow me to take his and the team's defense. The team are very careful not to overuse their role and it shows. They were hand-picked from a number of top quality posters and the clean forums we get today is a result of that selection. They have never rejected feedback.

Back on topic, prof gave an excellent reason why the Vita is not dead, and If you want to call it that way, then as Jay said you're looking for controversy. If you want to know how to make a thread like this, look at the re-opened thread, that's how you do it.



Mr Khan said:

Bingo. Runa, you're generally a very good poster, you just tend to come off as insulting when discussing things you don't like.

I treat banning as a behavioral correction tool. If you don't want to get banned again, better yourself as a poster. Many posters seem to have taken that to heart to an extent, because some who had a long rap-sheet in the past are now productive members.

Awww, thanks man.