Passive-Aggressive Modding

[Ree]

And personally, I would bet 500 quatloos that if I had taken the route you describe, I would have been perma-banned in half a second. It's no secret that I'm friends with people like, say, Pocky.

Well then, you would lose that bet.

BTW...who the heck is Pocky?

[MadMike]

While I totally see where its coming from, I still find it a little immature.

You really wouldn't have liked some of the things that were done to banned members under the old ownership then. When a certain repeat offender had been banned after getting caught trying to sneak back in after I don't know how many times, the co-admin at the time changed his title. Back then, we just used the standard "Junior member", "member", and "senior member" as defaults. His got changed from "Junior member" to "I have a small member."

Yes, that was Lazuli.

Ah, yes I remember her. She seemed nice enough at first, and when she first started having her tantrums, I closed a thread of hers to try and keep her out of trouble. But she was carrying plenty of rope, and seemed hellbent on hanging herself with it.

[Hyena Dandy]

You really wouldn't have liked some of the things that were done to banned members under the old ownership then. When a certain repeat offender had been banned after getting caught trying to sneak back in after I don't know how many times, the co-admin at the time changed his title. Back then, we just used the standard "Junior member", "member", and "senior member" as defaults. His got changed from "Junior member" to "I have a small member."

Hey, as I said. Its not the worst thing, but it does seem kinda petty. I don't hold anything against anyone, though.

[Andara Bledin]

You wound me; my primary posting style is deadpan snark.

Is that what you're attempting? Certainly fooled me.

And personally, I would bet 500 quatloos that if I had taken the route you describe, I would have been perma-banned in half a second.

You obviously have no real clue about who the mods are or how they conduct business if you honestly believe you'd get banned for pointing out that a defaced profile looks unprofessional and immature. I've said far stronger myself.

I view all such changes as being no more than internet vigilantism, no better than dropping a person's IRL info on 4chan for trolling purposes.

If so, then if I have such a severe disagreement with a neighbor in my neighborhood, I should feel justified putting up posters all over the neighborhood with his picture and proclaiming him to be a child molestor and a babyraper.

IMHO, the status of the member is irrelevant. If it's OK because it was a banned member, then it should also be OK to, say, suss out where the banned person works and shoot their bosses the stories they made while there.

I want to know what drugs a person has to take where the act of defacing the profile of a banned forumer is anywhere remotely the same as any of the things you suggested.

This is so completely disconnected from reality that it'd be comedic if it wasn't so damned pathetic.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

I view all such changes as being no more than internet vigilantism, no better than dropping a person's IRL info on 4chan for trolling purposes. Other sites that do this are regarded in the same way by me; on that basis, anyone who does such changes is Wrong for doing so.

Vigilantism suggests that there's some overriding legal force in operation on the 'net that's been denied a rightful scalp. There's no such body of which I'm aware, and we have to work to protect our own.

And does that only apply on the internet? Or does it apply in real life too?

Would he have said what he said had it not been to a bloodless computer screen?

If so, then if I have such a severe disagreement with a neighbor in my neighborhood, I should feel justified putting up posters all over the neighborhood with his picture and proclaiming him to be a child molestor and a babyraper.

See my point above about who enforces the 'Internet law'.

And before someone says, "Well, the internet and real life are different...", that's just not so anymore. What you say on the internet, if it gets attached to your real name,

Try reading our guidelines. As a matter of course, we advise members to obfuscate their identities. We've taken steps to protect peoples' identities when they didn't realise what they posted could cost them their job.

There's no real coincidence. I'll say it openly. It was mentioned to me in passing by someone from C_S. I looked myself. I took umbrage and made this post.

Really? Looks like shit stirring to me rather than a point of principle.

I will also say it openly: Hobbs didn't like that I made this post and took exception to it. I made it quite clear that if I find something I don't like, I will make my opinion known, and I don't give a goodly goddamn who likes it or not. At all. I WILL speak my mind.

Ah yes, the good old freedom of speech. Just be careful of who or what you're defending. Also, doesn't freedom of speech work in the favour of saying what you think about someone?

IMHO, the status of the member is irrelevant. If it's OK because it was a banned member, then it should also be OK to, say, suss out where the banned person works and shoot their bosses the stories they made while there. If we're going to label banned members as "Free Game" like the Church of Scientology does, that is.

I think you've slightly veered off the rails of reasoning here. This was an isolated incident on our part, and not more than a few words. We protect our members from bosses - ask Joi, or several other people who have needed posts hiding before. What we can't protect them from is themselves.

I would never be able to conceive of a reason where it would be justified, unless the profile violated a criminal statute. And in that case, such an edit should be completely neutral.

Sounds to me like someone's never run a forum.

Most of the time things are great - people work within the boundaries set, and boundaries define the society in question. Most of the time the membership is a delight and not a problem, and even when a problem happens it's dealt with and then forgotten because both sides know what has happened.

Then you get someone utterly entitled. The attitude seems to be, "You own this place, you pay for it, but I can say and do whatever I want. I can stir up what shit I want to stir. I can attack anyone I want. You're not allowed to stop me."

The rest of the members make the work worthwhile. A minority make it ... well, work.

Again, IMHO, this is irrelevant. A year after the banning. 5 years. 10 years. 20 years. Time is immaterial; the action is the problem.

Of course their actions don't matter, right? Of course, the number of times things were done to your satisfaction are completely outweighed by one incident you see as unacceptable?

If you are asking why I do not question what suddenly caused the change, it's because I don't see it as being relevant. No reason is sufficient; intent is not magical.

I don't really see any appreciation of the actions of the person in question.

And personally, I would bet 500 quatloos that if I had taken the route you describe, I would have been perma-banned in half a second. It's no secret that I'm friends with people like, say, Pocky. Or that I think the style of modding on C_S is much more heavy-handed than I would use - and do use.

I'll give you a hint. We don't ban people. They ban themselves.

I'll also tell you an open secret. I'd love to reduce the CS.com rules. Every time I look at them and think, "This could be reduced to 'don't be a dick'" someone does something gloriously ... indecent, I guess covers it, and then says that a certain rule only covers one thing and not theirs.

No, I don't really think you want me to tell you that.

Why not? I asked for people to give their opinions. If you don't think you can do that without being attacked openly then hit me up with a PM. We've let the 'nazi moderators' thread alone for a fair amount of time without editing or removing it. People in that thread were banned, but it wasn't anything to do with that thread.

I think that's wrong too, personally, and should be reversed and/or deleted, without question. I am nothing if not consistent. (And uncompromising.)

Then you'd struggle as a moderator. There are two rules I like the CS.com moderators to follow. The first is that they are members first and moderators second - they're here to enjoy the board as much as everyone else. The second is that we shouldn't sweat the small stuff.

Rapscallion

[Greenday]

Ah yes, the good old freedom of speech. Just be careful of who or what you're defending. Also, doesn't freedom of speech work in the favour of saying what you think about someone?

Remember when freedom of speech applied to online message boards?

Neither do I.

I see one harmless act compared to a lot of real life potentially damaging acts. Apples to oranges imo.

[Lace Neil Singer]

It's like people who bleat about their rights of freedom, citing a document that was created in America... when CS.com is owned and operated by an Englishman. XD

[Ree]

if I have such a severe disagreement with a neighbor in my neighborhood, I should feel justified putting up posters all over the neighborhood with his picture and proclaiming him to be a child molestor and a babyraper.

Well, if your neighbour is not a child molestor or babyraper, then, yes, that would be wrong. Now, if they truly are as you describe, and it is not just vindictiveness, then you are simply pointing out the truth.

In this case, the edit said,

I am an a sad, pathetic little man who gets his jollies off by trolling web forums and harassing mod

The earnest belief that rules do not apply to me and that anyone who dares challenge that notion is obviously abusing their power.

Continually attempting to return to a forum from which one was banned, as well as repeated emails to the moderators of said forum, and then, finally, in a message meant to send condolences, opening up old arguments and then threatening to bring a forum down with the help of friends seems like exactly what was described.

Banning resulting after numerous chances and warnings because one feels the rules are wrong is exactly what was described.

Again, IMHO, this is irrelevant. A year after the banning. 5 years. 10 years. 20 years. Time is immaterial; the action is the problem.

The key here is "IMHO" and subjectivity.
Yes, the action in question is the problem, but time frame does have bearing.
True, if one already has an axe to grind and a biased opinion, then, yes, time frame might be irrelevant.
However, if I suddenly saw something like this happen seemingly out of the blue, the rational part of me that wasn't possibly looking for material to use against a mod team, would wonder why the sudden change.
Of course, as I said, if one already has a major grudge then rational thinking goes by the wayside.

[MaggieTheCat]

I think the first and foremost thing to remember about both CS and Fratching is that they're privately owned sites, just like any business is considered private property. Just because a business opens itself to the public to do business, doesn't mean that anyone from the public can do whatever they want. Every business has rules, and every business retains the right to change those rules, enforce them as they see fit, and refuse service to someone for any reason. If someone doesn't like the rules of a business, they are free to go elsewhere -- but the business can still conduct itself however the owner sees fit.

CS and Fratching are largely the same way. Raps could make a rule stating that anyone who uses the word "kerfuffle" will be banned, and guess what? He owns the sites, so he can do that kind of thing. You don't like it? Then go somewhere else.

[Ghel]

Maggie, what you just said reminds me of something my husband did when he was running his BBS (bulletin board system - pre-internet days). Since adult themes were sometimes discussed, we had a method of age verification that all users went through. One day, a bunch of the users got together and told hubby that they had "voted" to let younger folks have access to the board. Well, Hubby got pissed off. He told these users, in chat, that "You are under the false assumption that this is a democracy. In actuality, this is a dictatorship. And I'm the dick." He gave them a few moments to read the message, then hit the power switch on the server.

It was beautiful seeing all the modem lights flashing as people tried to log back on. After about 15 minutes, he powered the server back up and let people log back on. He logged into the chat room and basically told them all, "This is my board. I own the equipment. I make the rules. If you don't like it, find a different BBS." Funnily enough, none of them left. Hubby's rules were fair, and the majority of the users realized it.

I don't think we need quite so flamboyant a demonstration here or on CS, but I think the situation is very similar. Raps owns the sites, and he makes the rules. I think the rules are fair and equitable. If they weren't, the sites obviously wouldn't be as popular as they are. The reporting system in place seems to work very well (at least, from my experience).

It might be helpful to compare fratching and CS to a private club which publishes some public content. The club allows membership to certain individuals but reserves the right to eject members who cause trouble. The fact that it's an international club existing on the internet adds a few twists to any legal issues there might be, but overall I think it's an accurate description.

[MadMike]

Just because a business opens itself to the public to do business, doesn't mean that anyone from the public can do whatever they want. Every business has rules, and every business retains the right to change those rules, enforce them as they see fit, and refuse service to someone for any reason.

And if a business wants to keep a bulletin board with pictures of troublemakers, and write not-so-nice things about them, that's their choice. Unprofessional? Maybe. But it's their choice.

Well, Hubby got pissed off. He told these users, in chat, that "You are under the false assumption that this is a democracy. In actuality, this is a dictatorship. And I'm the dick." He gave them a few moments to read the message, then hit the power switch on the server.

The previous owner of CS did something like that once, after too many people were pissing and moaning about the way he was running the board. No, he didn't shut it down, but he did shut down sections of it. He removed access to all the sections except "General" and "OT", I believe. He may have made a comment like, "You are all acting like a bunch of customers!" When he said something like that, you knew he was getting pissed.

A few weeks later, after he felt he'd made his point, he restored access.

[protege]

A few weeks later, after he felt he'd made his point, he restored access.

He did that to the chat room too...after people bitched about it. Can't say I blame him

[Racket_Man]

He did that to the chat room too...after people bitched about it. Can't say I blame him

wow that must REALLY go way back in time. I have been around CS in its various iterations for nearly 10 years now (dang have I been here THAT long???) and I do not remember that particular action. most of that time I have logged onto CS (and now Fratching) almost daily.

[telecom_goddess]

I have no problem with shutting down access to stuff to teach people a lesson

Back in the day I ran a bbs, a 7 line adult chat bbs and had to do the age verification thing too. And I had the ability to do all kinds of crap to people and read their email and stuff but never did. And in the time I ran it I only had to ban one person cause he brought guns to an event and threatened my bf at the time These were all local people so in that respect was a tad more dangerous. But yeah he got his ass banned for LIFE. And banned from my house as well (he was an ex husband of a friend)