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

Forums - Website Topics - The Mod Team: Questions, Comments, Concerns? Ask Here!

Wright on 20 November 2014
Ka-pi96 said:

Yeah... but he should explain why he thinks the game is shit...


That wasn't his point. He was explaining why the game didn't deserve the sales.

 

Ugh, triple post...

 

EDIT: What I mean is, does he need an explanation for the explanation of his comment? He should have given it if confronted. Hence why I think a warning or a quote post by a moderator would have been better, unless this user shows previous bad behaviour.



Around the Network
Smeags on 20 November 2014
Wright said:


So, if someone makes a thread about Meme Run's trailer, and someone else say "Wow, this game is shit", that's moderable?

Again:

Do not post only that Item A sucks, or that Item B is better than Item C. Give reasons why, post links to documented problems, of screenshots, or whatever you can. Similarly, do not reply to other posters with "you're wrong", or worse, “you’re an idiot/troll/fanboy.” Explain why you disagree, and perhaps point to the correct answer.

And as always, context is key.



3DS Rec Thread ~ Wii U Rec Thread ~ Xbox One Rec Thread

Conegamer on 20 November 2014
Wright said:
Carl2291 said:


Directly saying that a game is shit is somewhat different to saying, for example, "I dont like it".


Still, that's an explanation for what the dude previously wrote, not the point of the writer itself.

 

Even if that's too strong, a warning would have been better.

That's the progressive mod system for you. He was due a ban at this length and thus he got a ban for this length. 

I'm not really sure what you're trying to achieve here. It's black and white in the rules, and he went off topic to just say the "game is shit". Thus, he was moderated. 



 

Here lies the dearly departed Nintendomination Thread.

Wright on 20 November 2014
Conegamer said:

That's the progressive mod system for you. He was due a ban at this length and thus he got a ban for this length. 

I'm not really sure what you're trying to achieve here. It's black and white in the rules, and he went off topic to just say the "game is shit". Thus, he was moderated. 

 

Wright said:

EDIT: What I mean is, does he need an explanation for the explanation of his comment? He should have given it if confronted. Hence why I think a warning or a quote post by a moderator would have been better, unless this user shows previous bad behaviour.

 

I wasn't aware he had been already banned before.



Mummelmann on 20 November 2014

There's also this litte gem from the same user in the very same thread; http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=6850201

Doesn't seem like he has much respect for the rules or moderation in general.



Around the Network
Conegamer on 20 November 2014
Wright said:
Conegamer said:

That's the progressive mod system for you. He was due a ban at this length and thus he got a ban for this length. 

I'm not really sure what you're trying to achieve here. It's black and white in the rules, and he went off topic to just say the "game is shit". Thus, he was moderated. 

 

Wright said:

EDIT: What I mean is, does he need an explanation for the explanation of his comment? He should have given it if confronted. Hence why I think a warning or a quote post by a moderator would have been better, unless this user shows previous bad behaviour.

 

I wasn't aware he had been already banned before.

So why didn't you bother asking that? If you asked if he'd been banned before that's fine, but you asked why he was moderated which is an entirely different question. 

This was infact his eighth moderation so he has previous. As other users have said it's the context which is king, but that was never your question as far as I'm aware, which is surprising because it's right there in the forum rules.



 

Here lies the dearly departed Nintendomination Thread.

Wright on 20 November 2014
Conegamer said:

So why didn't you bother asking that?


Because I just realized he might have been moderated before, hence the edit.



Conegamer on 20 November 2014
Wright said:
Conegamer said:

So why didn't you bother asking that?


Because I just realized he might have been moderated before, hence the edit.

But that wasn't your question, and when that reasoning was given to you you disagreed with it. And if you're only realizing that now, then surely that's not why you posted the comment.

Regardless I think this has run it's course. We've arrived at the conclusion so all's well.



 

Here lies the dearly departed Nintendomination Thread.

Wright on 20 November 2014
Conegamer said:

 and when that reasoning was given to you you disagreed with it.


I thought the reasoning given only applied to posts whose content is merely "Item a sucks". I thought it wasn't applied to "I don't agree with this, because Item a sucks". Hence my reply to Smeags goes with the line "He's just not merely saying "Item A sucks"."



outlawauron on 20 November 2014
Smeags said:
Wright said:

Thing is, he posted "Game is shit" as to explain why he considers the game doesn't deserve the sales. He's just not merely saying "Item A sucks".

Posting (game here) is shit/crap/sucks/etc., no matter what the context, without explaining why you think the game is shit, is grounds for moderation.

If he would have been more cordial about it, perhaps wording it like "I don't even think it's a good game. I don't think it deserves such sales" (which makes it more personal to him and not a mass negative generalization), then it wouldn't be a problem.

Is there ever enforced on a consistent basis? I would have never thought we had this type of rule in my years here.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.