Discussion in 'Questions & Complaints' started by baconbits, Dec 28, 2016.
now the whole context is gone after the tagging fam
rude as fuck tbh
Really, if the staff decides to overturn this decision they should just demod mr_shadow. It's just going to go downhill from here, the masses are going to cause more shit about his decisions (yes, even more than they already are - as difficult as it is to believe!) and won't stop until he's gone anyway.
Not to mention it'll show how weak the architecture of the staff is as a whole and will lead to more riots.
good luck fams
No, the complaint was a response to what you said.
The sentence implies constructive criticism and those who are offer it are something new to the forum. That is dismissive of the legitimate complaints and solutions that have been presented over the years.
Stop hammering a square into a circle. You have in mind to say something to vocal segment of the cafe but what you quoted, and cropped out, doesn't depict a sense of hopelessness and it isn't without constructive criticism.
1) The sentence you quoted isn't me saying that things cannot be improved. The sentence is as simple as it appears at first glance: pointing out that something said is dismissive of previous contribution.
2) The part of my post you decided not to quote offered constructive criticism. I acknowledged and respected Mr_Shadow's decision to ban Mael, noting that he has to assess the consequences of a person's aggression and sympathising with his hand being forced. This tied into my suggestion that more focus be placed on whether or not a conversation has been hindered by someone's conduct.
Did you seriously just try to change your story?
You can ask @Mael what happened.
>"Did you try to change your story?!"
>Literally the same exact thing he already said
just to clarify, the idea with a section ban, as opposed to a forum ban, is to remove people from environment where they cause problems
in the case of a forum ban its implicit that the poster would be a nuisance everywhere on the forum, or that what they've done is bad enough that we don't care. E.g. if you post porn somewhere then you're donezo on the whole forum for awhile until you convince us to let you back in.
whereas with a section ban it's implicit that the poster is only a nuisance in that one section, e.g. people who go in and make really bad troll threads in the battledome will get battledome sectioned (or reply only banned perhaps) instead of banned from the whole site.
in and of itself the distinction between normal ban and section ban shouldn't be read into as some kind of grading of how bad ur conduct was lol.
1) Please go easy on shadow. Much of what he does is partially based on the input of other mods (like myself, Toby, etc.). He definitely cares about the section. I'm sure he is willing to listen to concerns and adapt to shifting section culture over time. His task of overseeing a rowdy section is pretty thankless so try to treat him with common human decency when bringing up your concerns.
2) We definitely do listen what you guys have to say. I especially appreciate when it's presented in a civil manner. Bacon, you are a classy guy for keeping your cool even when annoyed (same to others who have done this).
3) It is our responsibility to keep the forum fun for the maximum number of people. Of course we weigh positive contributions heavily. When the same person who adds entertainment to the forum also causes excessive antagonism towards other members, it's our duty to make them stop.
People care about Mael?
This is what I don't understand, my friend. Why a section permaban? If he's not worthy to post in the Cafe why is he good to post anywhere else? Is it just to make him miserable? Secondly, what was so bad about that post? To me it seemed harmlessly strident.
I'm glad about that, however this latest move seems related more to tone than any actual flaming.
It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other. I just think the Cafe's culture is more aggressive than some other sections. I don't know how you get around that so we've all been forced to accept it.
I see your point to an extent but realistically you have to approach a popular member differently than a guy who only has five posts and has no backing, the same way a prosecutor will handle a celebrity trial differently than any other. The political ramifications are different. I suspect that the same ban leveled at someone who no one likes wouldn't have generated the same attention, this thread and the level of anger we see now. I don't think they should be treated absolutely differently but practically speaking the approach should be different.
Secondly, you cannot on one hand say "treat everyone exactly the same" and then say "this isn't really worthy of a ban but because its Mael..." The one flies into the face of the other.
I disagree with you on this one. The decision to ban Luc from what was then the Chatterbox is very similar to this one and goes to a broader moderation policy that seems set on banning regulars... but not really banning them.
I suppose my larger question is this: how does this make the forum better? Luc is a popular member. His posts generate some level of activity. Others don't. The Chatterbox or whatever its called now would be better off with him in it than with him not in it. And the policy isn't consistent. If he's worthy of a ban ban him. Section banning doesn't really make much sense other than to antagonize the poster in question.
I was hasty in my response. I wanted to get ahead of the Krory like fatalism and it wasn't really in you or @Seto Kaiba 's posts. I apologize to the both of you.
Well one is more severe than the other. I would think that a section ban is a lighter form of punishment simply because the action was less heinous. I just don't think its worth using.
I don't think he does. He quotes me in the Cafe.
mr_shadow is a good man and one I respect. I by no means am trying to imply he be unmodded. I think he made a poor decision this time, tho.
I appreciate you saying so.
Then I guess I wonder how members like Zero have never been banned. The guy goes after my family on a regular basis.
Then why did I get a full forum ban for screenshotting a post in Society Library?
They think they do, but they're really just enabling his dysfunctional pathology.
The Cafe is really just Game of Cliques. No different than high school.
bacon fucking saying it as it is
it someone gets permed from a section what stops them getting a full forum ban?
yeah and if someone gets cited for littering what stops them getting jailed for murder?
THINK ABOUT IT SHEEPLE
kind of but not really, a section ban is more specialised, it's not necessarily lesser
section bans (in my experience) are only used for offences when there's a clear pattern of behaviour of doing something wrong in one specific section.
Like if you go into a section and do X wrong one time, you'll probably get a 24 hour forum ban or something, however if you come back from your ban and you then begin to consistently do X wrong in that same section then we start to consider whether it's appropriate to section ban people. Alternatively if the offence itself is very section specific then that might also be taken into consideration, e.g. if you keep posting spoilers in the normal OL after we tell you not to or whatever.
Different sections have different enforcement of the rules? You wouldn't post in the Country Club the same way you would in the Blender.
you are out of cb for behaving as the current cb does
are we playing the non sequitur game
ur afraid of bears
nah man, repeat offences to the point of getting section banned should just be a ban
the section ban should be a punishment and should more often than not be an afterthought
I'm wondering this myself. If you can't make it in the Cafe where else can you go? The Blender?
i am highlighting the current context of your ban and it's redundancy
you're just being lucanus cause it fuels you somehow
Bacon I respect you but I disagree with you here
During Luc's Time in the CB he pretty turned the place into his own Fanclub where 90% Of the threads were him and his gf Nighty spending about 50 or something pages memeing with each other
Not saying that he didn't bring anything positive to the section but the problem is that he saw the Chatterbox as his own house and went after people such as Justin and Nep Nep who weren't part of His blind Fanboys such as Moody Sworder Itachi and Larcher who worshipped the ground he walked on.
In the end Luc kinda forced Kami into banning him because he was starting to make the cb a terrible place to be if you weren't a part of his bootlickers
Then again I don't know the whole story so...
yeah, Luc is a bad influence on this forum
Coming from one of the more dysfunctional posters this is something of a laugher.
I honestly don't know the history there. All I can say is that he's been banned from the section forever but he posts everywhere else. Its hard for me to see how that is effective or why you wouldn't just ban him outright if he's such a problem.
Suppose my beef with Zero got really bad in the Cafe. We started flaming each other. How is section banning us not lighter than fully banning us? Second, suppose I do start flaming. Why not ban me? Why section ban me? I guess I'm trying to wrap my mind around how you approach this logically.
I'll totally concede that consistency is important. If we've overlooked things that should have been dealt with that is our fault and it needs to be corrected in the future.
Shadow made a thread asking members about section culture and Cafe location. Hopefully this will help the issue, since in order to have consistency we must have clear boundaries set up. Asking section regulars for input is really important for this.
If you feel like something has been overlooked, definitely report it and PM the Cafe S-mods. Please don't think of this as snitching or tattling. The Cafe is one of the busiest sections on the forum and it's hard for us to keep up with everything as thoroughly as would be ideal.
Shadow works hard in there and I think he does well in a tough situation to balance. My first impulse is to have his back, but if constructive improvements are suggested the staff is always upfront and honest with each other and open to considering alternative points of view.
don't ignore me, dammit
So did the Pussy Brigade make you guys cave yet and reverse the perm?
We all agree with that but the problem is this: when inconsistencies are pointed out what will you do?
I don't have a problem with him in general, just in this situation. I just wish the staff was more open about what leads to decisions and about decisions in general. I think we need to have a larger approach to solve the issue of openness and communication so that user concerns and staff relations can improve.
You're the best antagonizer on NF, Krory.
if that's the case why isn't he just permed
Maybe. let's see what happens
did u read my response to jayjay? I don't blame u if u didn't cause it wasn't addressed to u but it basically explains this imo
that said, if you started to flame Zero and I was the cafe mod I would:
1. warn you and remind you that you're breaking the rules and explain where cause u have no relevant warnings rn
2. if you continued I would give you a 24 hour forum ban
3. if it kept happening after that then we would move on to a week ban and I'd probably try and force you to ignore list the guy
4. if this still isn't working then a month or something and keep telling you to stop responding to zero
5. if it still keeps happening after this despite everything then we move on to a cafe section ban because you're not otherwise flaming people around the forum and there's good evidence to suggest that you only do things wrong in the cafe.
Also I think there was a miscommunication here regarding what I meant by severity or w.e
Obviously objectively a section is less harsh than a normal ban because you can still post elsewhere and stuff, what I meant was that internally they're treated similarly:
what I mean by this is that a section ban isn't dependant on better behaviour or whatever.
It's not like
50/100 flame level, section ban
100/100 flame level, full ban
the same level of flame will get you differing punishments depending on personal context. If you want an IRL example of this consider the difference between "woman stabs husband after getting abused for 10 years" and "ex-con stabs elderly paraplegic ww2 vet to sell war medals for drug money"
why should some old guy keep all the drug money, like HE'S gonna enjoy it?
he probably voted leave as well
IIRC I was banned for calling some guy n.i.g.g.e.r(without knowing the fellow personally) in the rep. message and another time for calling another guy's logic stupid and to my memory my 2 bans for flaming(but there are most likely more I can't recall)
when you have places like the blender where you can basically get away with murder
it's either you police or you don't do it at all, if anything a confrontational section like the cafe' should be the equivalent of Syria forum-wise: a forsaken warzone that even God is afraid of walking into
mighty mother of disclaimers: before the blender droogs come reaching for my jugular, I'm not saying your section should be changed, I'm positing that the same freedom should be extended to sections where confrontation is intrinsic to its very nature
Plenty of stuff to address but at work right now so I'll only chime in on this:
Yes, internally they are essentially the same thing. The same behavior that can lead to a forum ban is just as able to lead to a section ban. A number of reasons can lead to a section ban instead of a forum ban but it usually ultimately comes down to staff being bleeding hearts that would prefer to not entirely ban a member from the entire forum especially if he/she is particularly troublesome in only one section.
That's pretty much what things were like during the twilight of Megaharrison.
The Café is being modded adequately at the moment, in my opinion.
The deregulation of the sources policy has improved it (& allows the potential for more improvement) and the current moderation of tone is pretty light-touch. It was admittedly too extreme at the start of Shadow and Amanda's appointments.
There should only be a 'no bullying' policy. I think that is the intent of the 'no flaming' idea.
never understood the megaharrison hatred to be honest
I get it he's a Jew but other than that they have a nice side too you know
Damn you guys are weaker than I thought.
Really? He's just like klad to me.
He started going out of his mind after a while, and his actions got pettier and pettier, particularly with people he had beef with. Not only that he was an out and open racist just @ZeroTheDestroyer or @Marth6789 and the wonderful staff here not only sat on their hands on it for the longest time, they even rewarded him with the comfy position of advisor for all his troubles.
I'm glad Amanda is mod, whenever she is around, she does a good job. shadow is to me just Mega on the other end of the spectrum, at least he's getting that way.
Krory hates when people praise him. Its his kryptonite.
That's because you haven't been here to see what Mega USED to be like. He was quite the rational and level-headed fellow many years ago.
Mega was a troll.
A mod can't be a troll. It's contradictory. Unless it's a forum about trolling, but the Cafe isn't the case.
IIRC Mega began losing it around the time of the 2014 Gaza War. I don't know if he was maybe personally affected by it? At least his hatered of Muslims in general and Arabs in particular seemed to reach a new level after that.
I'm working on it, fam
all of the staff are trolls
Depends on the definition of troll.
The classic definition is making inflamatory posts/threads on purpose just to create salt and laugh at it.
That's what Mega was doing, and I don't see mods doing that myself often.
If it's all forms of pranking, then I can say mods do it.
Staff says "ya we can do better with consistency"
- discusses a member's ban in public (when this is against the rules)
- discusses criticisms of a staff member in public (when it should be in the SCR)
- has staff members literally pinning everything on a single mod for the events that transpired (when this isn't ethical)
-- then staff members telling posters to stop getting mad at that single staff member (when they literally asked for it)
- is derailed by insecure rambling justifications about why forum punishments are completely inconsistent (when they can just admit each staff member has a different emotional configuration that determines the flavor of their section modding) when historical moderating is questioned
-- from multiple staff comedians who don't even mod this forum like Kitsune and Toby but somehow are completely integral in how this larger system works and why, conveniently, nobody in the staff is at fault
This is without a doubt the worst version of NF staff this forum has ever seen. Please just resign if you guys think handled this issue and thread correctly.
my suggestions fix everything
Separate names with a comma.