wicked wrote: if you look at the overall picture, you'll see we follow a consistent format when it comes to bans here. And when someone gets up to the longer length bans, admins are always consulted, which happened in prowler's case. The typical* ladder is warnings, 24 hr ban, 3 day ban, 1 week ban, then we start discussing permaban.
If anything is still unclear, please advise..
I have no idea and don't really care about the specific case you mentioned.
BUT, as for the "unclear" part. While you have outlines the
process well enough, there is a
lot of in consistancies in who gets reprimanded and who doesn't. I don't necessarily want to spell out details in this thread, but I have spent a fair amount of time recently in chatterbox, in the past in Suggs and Buggs, etc. I am pretty good at sorting stuff out, wading through issues, but I see some people berated for basically saying something that one mod or the other just did not agree with (and I don't mean that it was offensive, just that it expressed an opinion with which the mod disagreed) while others are allowed to be downright rude and crude with no reprimand at all.
This is a private site. In that regard, there does not have to be equality.
BUT, what irritates is when statements are made that things are as even as they can be (we all understand human variability ... this goes well beyond that), but they just are not.
I would like to see some more specific guidelines on what is and is not acceptable, written down. Because there are a lot more rules being enforced than the ones you posted in this thread.
AND:
foregone wrote:I'll start with saying the mods are great, selfless, unthanked and generally abused for doing jobs which we'd all sorely miss if they were gone (and yes, I include ALL the mods).
My problem is that CC seems to condone vile naming conventions, abusive chats & pms and generally offensive behaviour to a much greater degree than posting something considered "off-topic". I have a much greater fear that a post of mine will be deemed to have strayed from the path than I would of verbally abusing someone in a game (which I do not, btw).
I'm just not sure that every post which flows pretty naturally from the conversation but is deemed to diverted from the intended path deserves a hiding when the Mods come home. Witty (subjective, of course) and/or humourous responses which are not intimately tied to the original post are, in my mind, what distinguishes a discussion from a mere list of gripes/praises and what brings a little sense of levity to the forum (or at least GD). If the next person who comes along to a topic wishes to comment on what the original poster said, rather than on the one or two responses "off-topic", he/she is still well able to do so. "Off-topic" responses just don't seem to detract from reading the forums, but rather add.
Perhaps its not the mods fault for enforcing this but rather that the distinctions should be more focused on the abuse of the system rather than just trying to ensure that noone strays from the very carefully beaten path.
I almost missed foregone's post, but I agree with a slight modification.
Strict adherance to thread is appropriate in Suggs and Buggs, some other specific threads.
In Chatterbox and many other forums such as the general CC discussion forum, only real outright spamming is a problem.
I mean, if someone wants to post 100 times "I hate dice" in every thread ... OK, BUST THEM! But, if a discussion on immigration ends up getting into health care ... or whether there is a difference in races (kept out of Flame contexts, of course)... or to why Asian food is superior to Antarctic food .... it can be fun.
because after all, wicked is wicked as the title says...
where is wicked?
