PDA

View Full Version : USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST (a.k.a. my 0.02 that noone asked for)


Xeon3D
08-21-2008, 09:30 PM
Like most of us care... if he was banned because he was spamming why let the spam stay and just add <USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST> ?

Why not just soft-delete it so that other mods\admin can see why the post was deleted and the user banned?

Do you need to show that you can ban people? Not like the spam bots will care.

And getting rid of all that sh*t will most defenitely (misspell?) make the search engine go a lot better in the future...

Some of you should really learn how to be an *effective* mod. Also, some of you could also be a little less 4chantards when your not in 4chan.

</rant>

Iconoclast
08-21-2008, 09:33 PM
um ditto

The threads Lillymon closed don't really serve any purpose either. I always soft-delete threads that shouldn't have existed in the first place and sometimes send a private message instead of posting.

Reaper man
08-22-2008, 01:44 AM
mmm yeah I'm not going to change the way I mod just because of a few complaints. Deal with it. I do a damn good job here keeping the boards in order.

Xeon3D
08-22-2008, 02:57 PM
mmm yeah I'm not going to change the way I mod just because of a few complaints. Deal with it. I do a damn good job here keeping the boards in order.

Your defenition of "damn good job" must be funny as hell!

I lol'd!

The 9th Sage
08-23-2008, 12:52 AM
Well, I've been deleting the spam posts that I moderate. I didn't really see the point in them cluttering up/interrupting the threads since they were only spam bots.

Reaper man
08-23-2008, 03:02 AM
Your defenition of "damn good job" must be funny as hell!

I lol'd!

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c196/reaper_man/STFU.jpg

Xeon3D
08-23-2008, 03:18 AM
3 words for you.

Freedom of Speech.

It's f*ckin hard to hear people tell you the mistakes you make and knowing that they're right isn't it?

Lillymon
08-23-2008, 01:21 PM
3 words for you.

Freedom of Speech.

It's f*ckin hard to hear people tell you the mistakes you make and knowing that they're right isn't it?
Technically, freedom of speech only applies to the government, and Zophar's Message Domain is a private establishment. I'm willing to entertain changes to my moderation style, but that's me. Reaper man gets to be an ass about it because he does so much moderation work he's making the rest of us look bad by comparison.

The 9th Sage
08-23-2008, 04:18 PM
Don't tell me there is going to be a flame war over this. >_<

Cornellius
08-27-2008, 10:23 PM
Well, at least, it's a warning for the other users. A new user could see the post and refrain from making this type of post after seeing that someone else got banned for doing the same.

Those edits, unlike the older ones, actually make sense.

Gil-Galad
08-28-2008, 07:17 PM
I believe that it's situational for the most part. Obvious spam posts should be automatically deleted. In all the times that I've been around when ZD was active, spam posts were deleted outright.

As far as other posts are concerned, yeah an edit stating what was moderated is fine in my opinion.

I also disagree with profane modified images. If you want to know why I disagee with those type of images I can hapily point you in the direction of another forum where they do these kind of things. Eventually enough people were offended and never came back. While it's fine over there if you enjoy fighting and having flame wars which are apparently allowed.

Is it fine here? I don't think so and apparently if a mod posts these type of images, ya can't moderate anyone else doing so.

The 9th Sage
08-28-2008, 07:28 PM
Is it fine here? I don't think so and apparently if a mod posts these type of images, ya can't moderate anyone else doing so.

I agree with this.

GeminiMan
08-28-2008, 08:31 PM
mmm yeah I'm not going to change the way I mod just because of a few complaints. Deal with it. I do a damn good job here keeping the boards in order.

You remind me more of a dictator than a moderator.

Iconoclast
08-28-2008, 10:25 PM
"Well, at least, it's a warning for the other users. A new user could see the post and refrain from making this type of post after seeing that someone else got banned for doing the same."

Experience shows users who appear to earn those kinds of edits do not read warnings or search for older threads. Given a read-before-posting thread it would probably damage more than repair: in the sense of provoking nasty reactions from moderators who are irritated by the idea that they cannot control how often such a thread is read. Since forums are about information and not moderators you earn bad cultural reputation for a website. Religious moderators are full of pride--the very motive for red-minded intolerance.

Any moderator who does not believe in compassion is self-destructive.

Random fact: Bumping old threads used to be known as "thread necromancy." The newer threads can wait longer than the older ones? It is respectful to reply to old threads; when new threads are created by newbies who don't search for already-existing topics moderators turn just as red. shows how overly-regulated a database of information is not supposed to be...also indicates perverse schizoprhenia at seeing the same thread title again as a problem to society

I mean come on...we are comparing using witchcraft now? This is no longer the eighteenth century here...let alone real life....

Cornellius
08-28-2008, 11:07 PM
I believe that it's situational for the most part. Obvious spam posts should be automatically deleted. In all the times that I've been around when ZD was active, spam posts were deleted outright.

As far as other posts are concerned, yeah an edit stating what was moderated is fine in my opinion.

I also disagree with profane modified images. If you want to know why I disagee with those type of images I can hapily point you in the direction of another forum where they do these kind of things. Eventually enough people were offended and never came back. While it's fine over there if you enjoy fighting and having flame wars which are apparently allowed.

Is it fine here? I don't think so and apparently if a mod posts these type of images, ya can't moderate anyone else doing so.

I agree with everything you said here, great work. Also, it's a mod's job to listen to the complains after all. The edits where the main reasons why the post were locked are told are fine with me. The older edits were less intelligent that the original post itself. These are the edits that I don't agree with.

As for the image, or any upcoming images of this type, it was way over the top, and wasn't needed.

Iconoclast
08-28-2008, 11:46 PM
It does not serve as a warning; warnings are stickied in rules threads...not hidden throughout threatening edits in old threads.

The thread he edited was worse than spam though...which is why deleting it would have been clean.

Cornellius
08-29-2008, 12:54 AM
It does not serve as a warning

That's your opinion, and I keep mine.

Iconoclast
08-29-2008, 01:06 AM
I never said I was here to entertain. I lost time agreeing with Xeon3D, so I'm finishing that.

"Moderating" shouldn't really be that big a fret somewhere online. It should be simple patience for things you can't help; you can't force everyone to read the rules. If there's a thread that no one needs to see delete it without stress. You can also try turning it into something newbies maybe should see by editing the thread or post, but obviously fewer people will read that over the rules and stickies.

It can only start arguments over things that never needed arguing...like this thread. Since not everyone agrees with one thing and other reasons, why is the best way to moderate not such that people aren't sure you did anything at all?

Cornellius
08-29-2008, 02:54 AM
I never said I was here to entertain. I lost time agreeing with Xeon3D, so I'm finishing that.

Didn't say that was your only purpose here.

If there's a thread that no one needs to see delete it without stress. You can also try turning it into something newbies maybe should see by editing the thread or post

You'd be surprised. Some newbies might check a thread if the title of it is about where to get roms, or other illegal material. Newbies to emulation are attracted to that. They see pokemon in a title and they click on the thread without thinking about anything else but to play pokemons. Can't blame them, when I was young, I wanted to play Zelda - A Link to the past really bad. That was the game that brought me to the great world of emulation. Never said that everyone will read the edited post or even follow the rules, I'm just saying that some will. I know that it's not enough to eradicate the problem of newbies asking for illegal material.

It can only start arguments over things that never needed arguing...like this thread. Since not everyone agrees with one thing and other reasons, why is the best way to moderate not such that people aren't sure you did anything at all?

Any debate is good. A debate is there to clear the confusion, and simplify a situation. If this thread exists, it's because there's a misunderstanding somewhere that need to be talked over. Sooner is the better. The board really need some clarifications about the job of a moderator. It needs to be talked over. Problems are helping things advance in a good way. When there's problems, there's questions, opinions, ideas, fears, etc.

I do think that Edman choose the moderators too early, without knowing them enough. It would have been better to see how they reacted to the ambigous situations on the forum first, then make a decision. I'm not saying that the moderators here aren't worthy of doing the job.

I'm not mad at you at all, I enjoy a good discussion. I'm just stating my opinion. You have yours, and I respect that.

Iconoclast
08-29-2008, 06:50 PM
I would be surprised...I have noted some newbies without knowledge of the rules browsing archivally and seeing some history. I do think they would catch the rules threads first, but there may be those cases in which they skip the rules thread titled about requesting game images as opposed to a thread named something from "ROMs and ISOs here!" on basis. That could be the stickied rules thread title, or you can allow the public to see mistakes which surely will be repeated. It could be amusing; I know I am not interested. Obviously it is up to the community's tastes: patience and peace or action and persistence...except in that the former is not noticed except by other moderators. Emphasizing signs of moderation and mistakes could serve to be very informing by contrast.

"Didn't say that was your only purpose here."

It is my only purpose in this thread. I confess I did not need to reply here initially. Commonly sheep use 'argument' to describe feared discussions. All an argument is is a statement contradictory to another. 'Argument' became a word of fear and despair. Such conservativity does indeed lack construction. Very much on the side our comma usage was similar; I gave up on that though after studying when the symbol is truely required.

My guess is since Edman ran out of time for frequent attendance he decided to let the forum be represented by its major users. Even if those users are terrible moderators he could well be noting the community entirely. He could also have noted who to make moderator than accept simple requests, but the instinct being: not all forums deserve perfect moderation. To this extent I doubt Edman would intend but may be right.

The 9th Sage
08-29-2008, 10:16 PM
I agree with everything you said here, great work. Also, it's a mod's job to listen to the complains after all.

I agree with this too. I want people to ask me questions, or give suggestions. I think that a moderator should listen to people too. The way I decided a long time ago to moderate (back when I modded the old boards) was to try to keep an even hand, and to give people more than one chance. Most newbies aren't disobeying the rules on purpose. Some are, of course, but they'll get dealt with quick when they keep on doing what got them in trouble in the first place.

I won't say I've never screwed up, and jumped the gun on that stuff, but generally, that's what I try to do.

Iconoclast
08-29-2008, 10:29 PM
I thought this was obvious?

How can you moderate without listening?

Iconoclast
08-29-2008, 10:44 PM
I thought this was obvious?

How can you moderate without listening?

Also, I agree with this. Judge me everyone! Does it seem like I'm trying to ignore someone?? Sorry about that. Cheese for everyone! If you believe in God hold the blue cheese.

No I'm not that bad.

Lillymon
08-30-2008, 01:49 PM
Judge me everyone! Does it seem like I'm trying to ignore someone?? Sorry about that. Cheese for everyone! If you believe in God hold the blue cheese.
Umm... what?

The 9th Sage
08-30-2008, 03:47 PM
I thought this was obvious?

How can you moderate without listening?

Wow, damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Iconoclast
08-30-2008, 07:33 PM
Anything that obvious doesn't need clarification.

If that was what this thread was about I'd stop spamming with efforts for something that can actually be discussed. If you guys are thinking moderators should listen you'll insult a few people. :D

I overestimated all of you. :D :D