Is Wicked Being Wicked Again?????

[deliaselene]

I have never had a problem with Wicked. I have, however, seen a good deal of inconsistancy.
That will always lead to issues. Folks can deal with strict rules and easy rules, but when there are different rules for different people ... no one really knows what to follow.

It is true that the openness of the forums is part of what makes them attractive, but some folks could just plain use some manners lessons ... and maybe if those things were spelled out just a bit better it would be easier on everyone. Mods included.

Why Not me? Was I not rude enough for you? Or Do I need a certain amount of immunity medals\:D/ Before I qualify?

The fact that you have left me online my sweet sweet darling is a good thing, I will out Norse The PuttyDogs in Chaotic Style, and it will be a slow, slow death..... I am loving it already...

It's a cumulative effect. ....

but wicked in another thread you state...

Nope. It's people who can't keep it to flame wars that get banned

Or if you fancy a rant and spell out a few truths, you wind up like me, Norse and the lion, shut down, gone has the days of debate people, gone, like tears in the rain....

so for consistency is it a cumulative effect or is it for flaming outside Flame Wars?

[jbrettlip]

It is consistently either and both. Makes perfect sense to me.

[Mycroft73]

I challenge you all to be 100% consistent....in the atmosphere of a dynamic environment, changing leadership, changing policies...)

so for consistency is it a cumulative effect or is it for flaming outside Flame Wars?

Must be for flaming, since we can't be consistent.

[wicked]

You're talking about apples and oranges, so let's sit down and eat some fruit and I'll be happy to clear that up for you. But let me get the entire quote, might make more sense then:

It's a cumulative effect. I wouldn't suggest trying to catch up to prowler; he's WAY ahead of you.

CC has a punishment "ladder", where you're given warnings and then proceed onto bans if those warnings aren't heeded. So the more you keep misbehaving, the longer and longer each ban becomes, hence my "cumulative effect" comment. For your example, chaos and prowler both had the same offense, but prowler had already 'worked his way up' to a one week ban with prior infractions. OTOH, this was the first warning ever for chaos. So same "offense" warranted different punishment based on the prior history of both members. While on the outside this may appear inconsistent because prowler's punishment was "harsher", 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.

*p.s... I say typical because some infractions are so severe (i.e. blatant trolling), that admins will accelerate the punishment process, but that's an admin call, not a mod one. Also, if someone has behaved for a long period of time after initial infractions, they'll be "stepped down" and won't start where they left off years ago.

[deliaselene]

You're talking about apples and oranges, so let's sit down and eat some fruit and I'll be happy to clear that up for you.

CC has a punishment "ladder", where you're given warnings and then proceed onto bans if those warnings aren't heeded. So the more you keep misbehaving, the longer and longer each ban becomes, hence my "cumulative effect" comment. For your example, chaos and prowler both had the same offense, but prowler had already 'worked his way up' to a one week ban with prior infractions. OTOH, this was the first warning ever for chaos. So same "offense" warranted different punishment based on the prior history of both members. While on the outside this may appear inconsistent because prowler's punishment was "harsher", 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.

*p.s... I say typical because some infractions are so severe (i.e. blatant trolling), that admins will accelerate the punishment process, but that's an admin call, not a mod one.

OK wicked in FW where we had our previous discussion you said one needed all the facts which Twill said were of a private nature = stalemate ...so we have three ways to get banned ....pms, flaming outside Flame wars or creating a cumulative effect...but this is purely subjective in the initial stages...and obviously we do not all agree with your recent decisions ...by the time its gets to admins being consulted its already way out of hand...you would have to agree

[wicked]

By getting all the facts, I was referring to lion's previous history of infractions, warnings and bans. Admins keep an eye on all bans handed out, and we often discuss the "lower" ones as well and communicate about any PM warnings given. So it's not like we're handing out bans w/o their knowledge. It's all on the same page, so we're all on the same page.

I'm not following your "three ways to get banned"? there are many ways to earn a ban... posting porn, bigotry, excessive spam, trolling, pretty much anything in the forum guidelines.

[deliaselene]

By getting all the facts, I was referring to lion's previous history of infractions, warnings and bans. Admins keep an eye on all bans handed out, and we often discuss the "lower" ones as well and communicate about any PM warnings given. So it's not like we're handing out bans w/o their knowledge. It's all on the same page, so we're all on the same page.

so how is anyone aware of the cumulative effect...and still it is subjective...as you freely admit we viewed lions humour differently...

[trapyoung]

By getting all the facts, I was referring to lion's previous history of infractions, warnings and bans. Admins keep an eye on all bans handed out, and we often discuss the "lower" ones as well and communicate about any PM warnings given. So it's not like we're handing out bans w/o their knowledge. It's all on the same page, so we're all on the same page.

I'm not following your "three ways to get banned"? there are many ways to earn a ban... posting porn, bigotry, excessive spam, trolling, pretty much anything in the forum guidelines.

without the porn, bigotry, spam and trolling wouldn't flame wars just be general discussion?

[wicked]

lion was ultimately banned for flaming outside flame wars, not for anything "humorous" he may have posted. And you're wrongly assuming I banned him.

Every person here knows where they are on the punishment ladder, it's up to you to remember. however, if you forget, we'd be happy to remind you of your previous history.

[trapyoung]

how do we get our punishment history? and is it easy to get a copy of other peoples?

[wicked]

Trapyoung, you've never even been warned, so I don't think you have anything to worry about. As for others, don't worry about them, that's between the mods/admins and them. We'd like to give people who've been banned a chance to clean up their act, so aren't going to publish their history here. If there's a question of fairness, we have posted the histories of those permaband upon request.

[trapyoung]

correction: i think the pm's and posts twill directed at me and some of my cohorts would most likely be considered a warning by him : P

[bbqpenguin]

impeach wicked! she thinks she's soooo cool with that pink text of hers in chat. well let me tell ya something sister, your cutesy pink act wont work on this guy, i can see right through you're colorful sugar coating to the plain black arial font the lies beneath!

[wcaclimbing]

nothing big happened, just a few people overreacting because a few people just got banned, and the mods send warning PMs to people when they break the rules. not that big of a deal.

So now everyones freaking out that the mods are abusing their powers
Doesn't seem that big of a deal, guys. The mods are doing a pretty good job. Just relax a bit and don't focus so much on the negative stuff.

When I left that statement, I did not have full knowledge of WHY you guys are complaining. I thought it was just because a few rather prominent members have been banned in the past few days.

Since apparently there is more to this debate than mods "abusing" their powers by banning people, and I don't know all the information on what has been happening, I take back what I said earlier.

I still support the mods in what they do, but I do not know enough about the recent "abuses" to be able to contribute to this debate.

Have a nice day,
wcaclimbing

[foregone]

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.

[The1exile]

The least moderated forum here, as far as I can tell, is Flame Wars. Though I can see that wouldn't suit the general purpose of "unmoderated debate".

Actually, I'd say callouts is far less moderated than FW.

[deliaselene]

The least moderated forum here, as far as I can tell, is Flame Wars. Though I can see that wouldn't suit the general purpose of "unmoderated debate".

Actually, I'd say callouts is far less moderated than FW.

you obvious dont spend much time in the FW ... it certainly is moderated ...

[wicked]

The least moderated forum here, as far as I can tell, is Flame Wars. Though I can see that wouldn't suit the general purpose of "unmoderated debate".

Actually, I'd say callouts is far less moderated than FW.

I'd agree.

[deliaselene]

The least moderated forum here, as far as I can tell, is Flame Wars. Though I can see that wouldn't suit the general purpose of "unmoderated debate".

Actually, I'd say callouts is far less moderated than FW.

I'd agree.

omg wicked we agreed on something!

[wicked]

shhh!!!! don't let it be publicly known that you agree with the wicked one, lest you be pelted with rotten fruit. because after all, wicked is wicked as the title says...

[Soloman]

shhh!!!! don't let it be publicly known that you agree with the wicked one, lest you be pelted with rotten fruit. because after all, wicked is wicked as the title says...

Maybe I have been lucky but I find I agree with you on most things here, To me you have done nothing wrong and you are wielding your mod powers as you are supposed to but I am not omnipresent in the forum so I do not know all that takes place but overall IMO you are a good and sensible Mod that seems to be the victim of more witch hunts then you actually organize but then again that is just my Opinion.

[deliaselene]

and everyone is entitled to a opinion...but opinions are only as good as the information they are based on...

[Blitzaholic]

I think wicked takes her job very seriously, but if she allows you to get to know her a little bit, she can be nice sometimes.

Trust me, NO one was madder at her than me when she stripped away my 1st 5 and top 5 thread, and then had to start it all over, I almost quit the site, no joke, just because of all the time, and effort and work i put into it. and it was not even my fault, some other spammed in there and I got punished for it.


However, she was willing to compromise with me and we worked it all out, now I got a crush on her























do not tell suggs

[deliaselene]

I think wicked takes her job very seriously, but if she allows you to get to know her a little bit, she can be nice sometimes.

Trust me, NO one was madder at her than me when she stripped away my 1st 5 and top 5 thread, and then had to start it all over, I almost quit the site, no joke, just because of all the time, and effort and work i put into it. and it was not even my fault, some other spammed in there and I got punished for it.


However, she was willing to compromise with me and we worked it all out, now I got a crush on her


do not tell suggs

mmm...and you were suggesting what Blitzy?

[MeDeFe]

Actually, "criticise" is a proper way of spelling the word, not everyone adheres to your american imperialistic wishes regarding total and world-wide control over spelling.

And to stay within the metaphor and on topic, dito, we all are at once scriptwriters, audience, performers, directors and (some of us) financers of this theatre, lack's just the guy who owns the building and fixes the drains every now and then. Sure, an important person, but not the be-all and end-all.

oh crap
Apologies for forgetting another international spelling change...

Well, lack's the guy who built the building, owns it, runs the projectors, and wipes up the vomit. We're only financiers in that we paid for our ticket.

What do you mean by calling us the "scriptwriters, performers, and directors"? I can kind of see where you're going with this, but I need a little more explanation...

I mean just that, we don't pay for a pre-produced product in the form of experiencing the forums like a play in a theatre and then going home, no, we are the product, we produce ourselves on lack's premises, we might as well do it somewhere else (NOTA), but since we're lazy and opportunistic we do it right here where we play the game. What would be left without the users? Nothing.
Also: what's paid for is the game that brought us here, not some obscure right to look at the forums and go "ah, how very true" and then be on ones way. In posting you are actively contributing to other's experience of the forums, without posters there is nothing there. What I'm saying is that you are attaching too much importance to the guy owning the building, he takes a look and sees that we seem to have a jolly good time here and are keeping ourselves entertained so he doesn't have to do it and can keep the drains and lights working. He's asked a few volunteers to make sure no fights break out and that's it, the problems with these volunteers however, are that they are under no obligation to be impartial since they're neither paid nor properly supervised, that there is no direct way for the rest of the party to depose them if they feel a volunteer is on a powertrip, and that in conjunction with this system of escalating punishments you can get a weeklong ban for a mild flame OOFW if these volunteers feel you have gone offtopic in one thread too many. I mean, what does one have to do with the other, pickpocketing doesn't raise your fines for speeding either.