-snip-

User moderated for this post and offensive .GIF removed -RavenXtra

if he had any doubt about the validity of their claims he should have asked for sources, which he didnt. scisca was banned before even kowen replied and he saw it, since he addressed him in a post by saying "to the guy who got banned". and he wasnt "hit back", he was quoted and replied to by information about the product. 

your a mod, tell me how many times was kowen banned or for trolling sony or one of its products or going at it with a sony fan? because lets not act kowen doesnt has a history aggravating sony fans, which the mod team knows he does, yet you seem to imply that shouldnt be taken into account. 

and yet this all doesnt justify his comment which he got banned for. because it was clear as day, it was bait. 

RolStoppable said: Looks like I have once again a big case on my hands, with no less than three mods being involved. So you banned tbone51, but you need to keep in mind that the bodyguard project extends beyond prevention of moderations. Let's start with Conegamer: Goodnightmoon posted something on tbone51's wall: What a dumb reson to ban someone, honestly. Have you read the statement of the user he was answering? You really have to be high to say that :S But oh well... 3 hours ago | 1 comments | Add comment The other use was also moderated: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/profile/115604/gtaexpert/ However this is not the place for such comments. If you have questions about the ban then please PM the mod in question. 2 hours ago                   So that's why I am here. Let's look at the post that got tbone51 banned: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=7146563 He asked someone what the **** he was smoking. It's a justified question because the statement was either: 1. Trolling 2. Flamebait 3. Delusion If the mod team believes that there is a fourth option, feel free to say so. In any case, Veknoid_Outcast banned tbone51, but apparently didn't ask himself why tbone said what he said (and the mod team itself said as much in this thread, that taking into account why people say what they say has to be a must when considering a moderation), and he definitely didn't see anything wrong with GTAexpert's post. That poster got banned later by Mr Khan and here is why: Flaming (Inappropriate response to a less-than-appropriate comment. Next time, report comments like this.) ~ Mr Khan [7146603] From this it can be concluded that GTAexpert didn't report tbone earlier. Which means that there's somebody else who has an axe to grind with tbone; which is obvious when you consider that the person who reported tbone considered GTAexpert's post fine; so we have a clear case of lack of interest in thoughtful discussion and thus merely a report out of malice. Or maybe GTAexpert did report tbone and added an in-thread response, but if that happened, then his initial post can be verified as blatant flamebait. In which case you ban the baiter and nobody else. Why? Because that way you strip the baiter of success; that's the most important thing, because someone who baits might not even care about getting a moderation themselves. But the concerning thing here is that not only one mod (Veknoid) seemed oblivious to the content of the initial post of GTAexpert, but two (Khan). Said initial post is part of the quote tree in both moderated posts, so it's really hard to overlook. Does this mean that a couple of the members of the mod team do not care at all? Or does it mean that you want to get rid of tbone, but act like it's all tbone's fault? That would be even worse. People on these forums commonly ask someone what they are smoking when they see an outrageous statement. This in and of itself is never worthy of moderation (and has never been as far as I know), so regardless of which of the above three option the mod team picks (this post makes a strong case for delusion), tbone's ban cannot and should not be upheld. The only way that the mod team could wiggle itself out of this wrongful moderation is if they had additional evidence to take action. I know you guys keep borderline posts at hand to supplement bans that may seem overly harsh. However, tbone's ban reason is long, but still doesn't contain any proof of further infractions: Flaming (In my previous ban message to you, two months ago, I requested that you show more respect for the forum rules and for members of this community. For the most part, you've followed this advice. But this post is a clear infraction of forum rules and it represents a personal attack against a fellow poster. Let me be absolutely clear: you are skating on the thinnest of ice. All your contributions to the site are admirable. Your enthusiasm and sense of humor is appreciated. But all those positive things are erased by aggressive, demeaning posts like this one. Treat every member of this forum with respect, especially those who disagree with you.) ~ Veknoid_Outcast [7146563] Which means that you have no such proof. Or if you do, you aren't competent at your jobs because you completely omitted that you have it. Lastly, here is how tbone responded to a disrespectful comment that was aimed at him. That's not how someone who is out to flame reacts.

Actually i could make a case that GTA_Expert was baiting with that ridiculously low number, but since i banned him anyway...

Either way, implications of drug use have come under fire since they became a go-to for people who were trying to flame without breaking rules.

Looks like I have once again a big case on my hands, with no less than three mods being involved. So you banned tbone51, but you need to keep in mind that the bodyguard project extends beyond prevention of moderations.

Let's start with Conegamer:

Goodnightmoon posted something on tbone51's wall:

What a dumb reson to ban someone, honestly.

Have you read the statement of the user he was answering? You really have to be high to say that :S

But oh well...

3 hours ago | 1 comments | Add comment

The other use was also moderated:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/profile/115604/gtaexpert/

However this is not the place for such comments. If you have questions about the ban then please PM the mod in question.

2 hours ago

So that's why I am here. Let's look at the post that got tbone51 banned:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=7146563

He asked someone what the **** he was smoking. It's a justified question because the statement was either:

1. Trolling
2. Flamebait
3. Delusion

If the mod team believes that there is a fourth option, feel free to say so. In any case, Veknoid_Outcast banned tbone51, but apparently didn't ask himself why tbone said what he said (and the mod team itself said as much in this thread, that taking into account why people say what they say has to be a must when considering a moderation), and he definitely didn't see anything wrong with GTAexpert's post. That poster got banned later by Mr Khan and here is why:

Flaming (Inappropriate response to a less-than-appropriate comment. Next time, report comments like this.) ~ Mr Khan [7146603]

From this it can be concluded that GTAexpert didn't report tbone earlier. Which means that there's somebody else who has an axe to grind with tbone; which is obvious when you consider that the person who reported tbone considered GTAexpert's post fine; so we have a clear case of lack of interest in thoughtful discussion and thus merely a report out of malice. Or maybe GTAexpert did report tbone and added an in-thread response, but if that happened, then his initial post can be verified as blatant flamebait. In which case you ban the baiter and nobody else. Why? Because that way you strip the baiter of success; that's the most important thing, because someone who baits might not even care about getting a moderation themselves.

But the concerning thing here is that not only one mod (Veknoid) seemed oblivious to the content of the initial post of GTAexpert, but two (Khan). Said initial post is part of the quote tree in both moderated posts, so it's really hard to overlook. Does this mean that a couple of the members of the mod team do not care at all? Or does it mean that you want to get rid of tbone, but act like it's all tbone's fault? That would be even worse.

People on these forums commonly ask someone what they are smoking when they see an outrageous statement. This in and of itself is never worthy of moderation (and has never been as far as I know), so regardless of which of the above three option the mod team picks (this post makes a strong case for delusion), tbone's ban cannot and should not be upheld. The only way that the mod team could wiggle itself out of this wrongful moderation is if they had additional evidence to take action. I know you guys keep borderline posts at hand to supplement bans that may seem overly harsh. However, tbone's ban reason is long, but still doesn't contain any proof of further infractions:

Flaming (In my previous ban message to you, two months ago, I requested that you show more respect for the forum rules and for members of this community. For the most part, you've followed this advice. But this post is a clear infraction of forum rules and it represents a personal attack against a fellow poster. Let me be absolutely clear: you are skating on the thinnest of ice. All your contributions to the site are admirable. Your enthusiasm and sense of humor is appreciated. But all those positive things are erased by aggressive, demeaning posts like this one. Treat every member of this forum with respect, especially those who disagree with you.) ~ Veknoid_Outcast [7146563]

Which means that you have no such proof. Or if you do, you aren't competent at your jobs because you completely omitted that you have it.

Lastly, here is how tbone responded to a disrespectful comment that was aimed at him. That's not how someone who is out to flame reacts.

The ban length isn't even up for debate (it didn't increase since the last time anyway), it's the moderation itself.

You are correct about the implication of such words, but what they mean is that somebody is not willing to believe that someone is this stupid and that a reconsideration in a sober state, or just some actual thought put into it, would lead to a different conclusion. So in a situation like this it's up for the mod team to decide if the originally posted statement qualifies as a defensible position. If it is, then the implication of drug use is offensive. If it isn't defensible, then it's okay because it possibly gives another member more credit than they deserve.

The thing is that if the mod team doesn't make a difference between defensible and indefensible stances, then it basically means that forum members are free to post all sorts of garbage while enjoying protection from the mods. I know that you want to foster an environment where everyone gets respected, but if sound reasoning and stupidity are treated equally, then that doesn't help the community. The consequence is that stupidity is believed to be valid because it isn't allowed to be beat down and therefore the source of the stupidity doesn't see any need to improve their knowledge of any given subject, leading to reoccuring circular arguments which makes more intelligent and more reasonable members avoid discussions altogether and that hurts the forums overall.

The community must be allowed to be blunt when confronted with delusion, otherwise a deluded member might be lost forever. People can be woken up from delusions, but that's not going to happen when their opinions have to be treated respectfully at all times. And yes, this works. It's the only way it works.

The ban length isn't even up for debate (it didn't increase since the last time anyway), it's the moderation itself.

You are correct about the implication of such words, but what they mean is that somebody is not willing to believe that someone is this stupid and that a reconsideration in a sober state, or just some actual thought put into it, would lead to a different conclusion. So in a situation like this it's up for the mod team to decide if the originally posted statement qualifies as a defensible position. If it is, then the implication of drug use is offensive. If it isn't defensible, then it's okay because it possibly gives another member more credit than they deserve.

The thing is that if the mod team doesn't make a difference between defensible and indefensible stances, then it basically means that forum members are free to post all sorts of garbage while enjoying protection from the mods. I know that you want to foster an environment where everyone gets respected, but if sound reasoning and stupidity are treated equally, then that doesn't help the community. The consequence is that stupidity is believed to be valid because it isn't allowed to be beat down and therefore the source of the stupidity doesn't see any need to improve their knowledge of any given subject, leading to reoccuring circular arguments which makes more intelligent and more reasonable members avoid discussions altogether and that hurts the forums overall.

The community must be allowed to be blunt when confronted with delusion, otherwise a deluded member might be lost forever. People can be woken up from delusions, but that's not going to happen when their opinions have to be treated respectfully at all times. And yes, this works. It's the only way it works.