This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - TB
Pages: 1 ... 183184185 186187 ... 570
5521
« on: August 31, 2015, 10:05:15 AM »
You guys were arguing for it on the first few pages, and I'm not going to read 15 pages of angry fanboys seeking vengeance.
Not with that attitude!
5522
« on: August 31, 2015, 09:55:54 AM »
If doxxing only has a 1 month ban for punishment then 4-6 months/a year is ridiculous. You guys are out of your minds.
I'm not sure how much of the thread you've read but that 4 - 6 months is the window for the spoiler warning around a piece of media. Also the other point in this thread was to increase ban times so...
5523
« on: August 31, 2015, 09:54:02 AM »
God damn.
5524
« on: August 31, 2015, 09:52:12 AM »
Probably Star-Lord
5525
« on: August 31, 2015, 09:47:44 AM »
So does this mean Isara is gone?
She's MIA iirc.
5526
« on: August 31, 2015, 01:23:32 AM »
5527
« on: August 30, 2015, 11:37:45 PM »
Twice.
5528
« on: August 30, 2015, 08:23:20 PM »
Executive Delivery Boy.
5529
« on: August 30, 2015, 06:56:31 PM »
No you are not a mojahed stick to white knighting korra man it's all your good for
you're*
5530
« on: August 30, 2015, 06:53:13 PM »
Lol TBlocks always adding his opinion where it's not wanted.
:^) mashallah brother
5531
« on: August 30, 2015, 06:37:12 PM »
In plain english though, upon reviewing the rules and the like - despite icy not including the right section of part of it (GG) regarding reposting content that has been removed the following has been applied to him
-Derailing
-Reposting deleted images
The latter might be unfamiliar because it's a relatively recent addition to the ruleset, maybe a month or so ago. Basically it just means don't repost shit we've cleaned up.
The spoiler rules add-on should be rolled out tonight, depending on whether Icy gets time to do it when he gets home. But hopefully that somewhat resolves the issue.
I'm sure people will want to see more, and I do sympathise to some extent because you can't exactly unspoil something once it's been spoiled but I think this is the best way to approach it from a neutral standpoint (my position on the matter) because retroactive bans isn't a thing as I've said but he's been hit for the rules he did break last night all the same.
So yeah, uh... questions I guess?
Or if people are somewhat happy then that's also good.
I'm not under the illusion that this is going to make it all flowers and rainbows but yeah, this is what'll happen for now.
Now this I can get behind. Thank you.
5532
« on: August 30, 2015, 05:46:14 PM »
Daily reminder that you people didn't vote for Strict moderation when you had the chance.
if you report the post with 'Spoiler - Reason why (if it's not obvious)' then there are enough mods around to see it within a reasonable timeframe.
If by reasonable you mean 10 minutes - 3 hours then sure. It's totally reasonable.
You know it's not a full time job right?
And that almost all of the staff actually have jobs/lives and the like?
I'm just checking because you never know.
Of course. That's why I proposed (earlier in the thread) that there should be more staff members to cover the people at work. That's pretty common sense if you ask me.
Picking monitors is one thing, picking moderators is another.
Entrusting someone with all of the information and tools that a mod gets given isn't something that should be done lightly.
There is a finite number of users on here who would be suitable for the position and most of them are in the roles already. There are a few others that are worth considering but even so, we will never have enough moderators to provide round the clock coverage of every little thing that happens on here, that's just the way of the world.
You're telling me, that out of 1028 total members (most of which aren't active I know) only 5 people are able to handle the enormous duty of moderating an internet forum. 1 of which is barely active anyway!
Well you got me beat there Psy. if we can't fix the problem entirely why try to fix it at all?
Considering most of them are dead accounts at this point, if we have an active userpool of around 150 users then that's a bit more of a realistic comparison.
Minus the 10 people already on staff and you are down to 140.
Then take away the shitposters, then discount the people who flamewar incessantly, then the drama vampires and you start to have a much smaller number of people who could do the job. And then an even smaller number of people who could do the job well.
You would whittle that number down to 5? Only 5 people who are competent enough to handle an internet forum?
Also if you seriously think 150 people is the user base then I can see why the ban and warning times are so small.
Currently four, or five because DC is still a mod even though I think he's left given the length of the AFK now, is working acceptably.
Well given the recent situation... that statement seems to be in question.
In what way?
As I recall the pictures were being edited out/deleted reasonably quickly considering most of the staff were busy at the time. Certainly none were left there for three hours.
Or do you perhaps refer to how we haven't just shot gatsby for the nonexistant rule he didn't break?
Because when I get five minutes I'm going to look over the rules thread and see if any of them fit the situation from another angle.
I'll do it for you.
5. You Have No Rights. Play Nice.
Well would ya look at that.
boo hoo
Dude seriously?
they were bitching so much about LC supposedly spoiling the game i just had to do it.
Yup. There was an extraterrestrial force pushing you towards the post button.
there was no force making me doing anything, i could see how important the game is to them and i did it regardless because their rage would be entertaining
Well that's incredibly helpful of you, could you point me to the enforceable part of the old bnet disclaimer?
Where it says what kind of punishment that invokes?
Or am I correct in thinking that bit is completely useless and is more a reference to where we came from in the first place?
Strange that you would put that in the official rules then.
5533
« on: August 30, 2015, 05:42:22 PM »
Daily reminder that you people didn't vote for Strict moderation when you had the chance.
if you report the post with 'Spoiler - Reason why (if it's not obvious)' then there are enough mods around to see it within a reasonable timeframe.
If by reasonable you mean 10 minutes - 3 hours then sure. It's totally reasonable.
You know it's not a full time job right?
And that almost all of the staff actually have jobs/lives and the like?
I'm just checking because you never know.
Of course. That's why I proposed (earlier in the thread) that there should be more staff members to cover the people at work. That's pretty common sense if you ask me.
Picking monitors is one thing, picking moderators is another.
Entrusting someone with all of the information and tools that a mod gets given isn't something that should be done lightly.
There is a finite number of users on here who would be suitable for the position and most of them are in the roles already. There are a few others that are worth considering but even so, we will never have enough moderators to provide round the clock coverage of every little thing that happens on here, that's just the way of the world.
You're telling me, that out of 1028 total members (most of which aren't active I know) only 5 people are able to handle the enormous duty of moderating an internet forum. 1 of which is barely active anyway!
Well you got me beat there Psy. if we can't fix the problem entirely why try to fix it at all?
Considering most of them are dead accounts at this point, if we have an active userpool of around 150 users then that's a bit more of a realistic comparison.
Minus the 10 people already on staff and you are down to 140.
Then take away the shitposters, then discount the people who flamewar incessantly, then the drama vampires and you start to have a much smaller number of people who could do the job. And then an even smaller number of people who could do the job well.
You would whittle that number down to 5? Only 5 people who are competent enough to handle an internet forum?
Also if you seriously think 150 people is the user base then I can see why the ban and warning times are so small.
Currently four, or five because DC is still a mod even though I think he's left given the length of the AFK now, is working acceptably.
Well given the recent situation... that statement seems to be in question.
In what way?
As I recall the pictures were being edited out/deleted reasonably quickly considering most of the staff were busy at the time. Certainly none were left there for three hours.
Or do you perhaps refer to how we haven't just shot gatsby for the nonexistant rule he didn't break?
Because when I get five minutes I'm going to look over the rules thread and see if any of them fit the situation from another angle.
I'll do it for you. 5. You Have No Rights. Play Nice. Well would ya look at that. boo hoo
Dude seriously?
they were bitching so much about LC supposedly spoiling the game i just had to do it.
Yup. There was an extraterrestrial force pushing you towards the post button.
there was no force making me doing anything, i could see how important the game is to them and i did it regardless because their rage would be entertaining
5534
« on: August 30, 2015, 05:36:52 PM »
Tblocks you're not going to become a mod.
I don't want to be a mod. at all.
5535
« on: August 30, 2015, 05:35:56 PM »
Daily reminder that you people didn't vote for Strict moderation when you had the chance.
if you report the post with 'Spoiler - Reason why (if it's not obvious)' then there are enough mods around to see it within a reasonable timeframe.
If by reasonable you mean 10 minutes - 3 hours then sure. It's totally reasonable.
You know it's not a full time job right?
And that almost all of the staff actually have jobs/lives and the like?
I'm just checking because you never know.
Of course. That's why I proposed (earlier in the thread) that there should be more staff members to cover the people at work. That's pretty common sense if you ask me.
Picking monitors is one thing, picking moderators is another.
Entrusting someone with all of the information and tools that a mod gets given isn't something that should be done lightly.
There is a finite number of users on here who would be suitable for the position and most of them are in the roles already. There are a few others that are worth considering but even so, we will never have enough moderators to provide round the clock coverage of every little thing that happens on here, that's just the way of the world.
You're telling me, that out of 1028 total members (most of which aren't active I know) only 5 people are able to handle the enormous duty of moderating an internet forum. 1 of which is barely active anyway!
Well you got me beat there Psy. if we can't fix the problem entirely why try to fix it at all?
Considering most of them are dead accounts at this point, if we have an active userpool of around 150 users then that's a bit more of a realistic comparison.
Minus the 10 people already on staff and you are down to 140.
Then take away the shitposters, then discount the people who flamewar incessantly, then the drama vampires and you start to have a much smaller number of people who could do the job. And then an even smaller number of people who could do the job well.
You would whittle that number down to 5? Only 5 people who are competent enough to handle an internet forum?
Also if you seriously think 150 people is the user base then I can see why the ban and warning times are so small.
Currently four, or five because DC is still a mod even though I think he's left given the length of the AFK now, is working acceptably.
Well given the recent situation... that statement seems to be in question.
5536
« on: August 30, 2015, 05:24:02 PM »
Daily reminder that you people didn't vote for Strict moderation when you had the chance.
if you report the post with 'Spoiler - Reason why (if it's not obvious)' then there are enough mods around to see it within a reasonable timeframe.
If by reasonable you mean 10 minutes - 3 hours then sure. It's totally reasonable.
You know it's not a full time job right?
And that almost all of the staff actually have jobs/lives and the like?
I'm just checking because you never know.
Of course. That's why I proposed (earlier in the thread) that there should be more staff members to cover the people at work. That's pretty common sense if you ask me.
Picking monitors is one thing, picking moderators is another.
Entrusting someone with all of the information and tools that a mod gets given isn't something that should be done lightly.
There is a finite number of users on here who would be suitable for the position and most of them are in the roles already. There are a few others that are worth considering but even so, we will never have enough moderators to provide round the clock coverage of every little thing that happens on here, that's just the way of the world.
You're telling me, that out of 1028 total members (most of which aren't active I know) only 5 people are able to handle the enormous duty of moderating an internet forum. 1 of which is barely active anyway!
Well you got me beat there Psy. if we can't fix the problem entirely why try to fix it at all?
Considering most of them are dead accounts at this point, if we have an active userpool of around 150 users then that's a bit more of a realistic comparison.
Minus the 10 people already on staff and you are down to 140.
Then take away the shitposters, then discount the people who flamewar incessantly, then the drama vampires and you start to have a much smaller number of people who could do the job. And then an even smaller number of people who could do the job well.
You would whittle that number down to 5? Only 5 people who are competent enough to handle an internet forum? Also if you seriously think 150 people is the user base then I can see why the ban and warning times are so small.
5537
« on: August 30, 2015, 05:19:10 PM »
Stick to the rules 24/7, 365 days a year.
"The forum staff reserves the right to remove you, and your content, from the forums for any reason, without warning. This was agreed upon registration to the site." - The Rules
I'd like to point out that one of the requests/complaints was "consistent moderation." What is it we're doing here if not that, TBlocks? Yeah, I could ban Goots to kingdom come because what he did was shitty, but that would be the definition of biased, unfair, and inconsistent moderation.
I would argue that's turning a blind eye to someone who boo hoo
intentionally boo hoo
Dude seriously?
they were bitching so much about LC supposedly spoiling the game i just had to do it.
Maliciously boo hoo
Dude seriously?
they were bitching so much about LC supposedly spoiling the game i just had to do it.
Yup. There was an extraterrestrial force pushing you towards the post button.
there was no force making me doing anything, i could see how important the game is to them and i did it regardless because their rage would be entertaining
did something that was intended to cause harm to another user.
5538
« on: August 30, 2015, 05:13:42 PM »
Daily reminder that you people didn't vote for Strict moderation when you had the chance.
if you report the post with 'Spoiler - Reason why (if it's not obvious)' then there are enough mods around to see it within a reasonable timeframe.
If by reasonable you mean 10 minutes - 3 hours then sure. It's totally reasonable.
You know it's not a full time job right?
And that almost all of the staff actually have jobs/lives and the like?
I'm just checking because you never know.
Of course. That's why I proposed (earlier in the thread) that there should be more staff members to cover the people at work. That's pretty common sense if you ask me.
Picking monitors is one thing, picking moderators is another.
Entrusting someone with all of the information and tools that a mod gets given isn't something that should be done lightly.
There is a finite number of users on here who would be suitable for the position and most of them are in the roles already. There are a few others that are worth considering but even so, we will never have enough moderators to provide round the clock coverage of every little thing that happens on here, that's just the way of the world.
You're telling me, that out of 1028 total members (most of which aren't active I know) only 5 people are able to handle the enormous duty of moderating an internet forum. 1 of which is barely active anyway! Well you got me beat there Psy. if we can't fix the problem entirely why try to fix it at all?
5539
« on: August 30, 2015, 05:09:23 PM »
Stick to the rules 24/7, 365 days a year.
"The forum staff reserves the right to remove you, and your content, from the forums for any reason, without warning. This was agreed upon registration to the site." - The Rules
5540
« on: August 30, 2015, 05:03:37 PM »
Daily reminder that you people didn't vote for Strict moderation when you had the chance.
if you report the post with 'Spoiler - Reason why (if it's not obvious)' then there are enough mods around to see it within a reasonable timeframe.
If by reasonable you mean 10 minutes - 3 hours then sure. It's totally reasonable.
You know it's not a full time job right?
And that almost all of the staff actually have jobs/lives and the like?
I'm just checking because you never know.
Of course. That's why I proposed (earlier in the thread) that there should be more staff members to cover the people at work. That's pretty common sense if you ask me.
5541
« on: August 30, 2015, 05:00:56 PM »
Also I would like to ask why the staff is treating Gats like a child.
If a child does something wrong you say "Ok it's fine for now, just don't do it again."
Gats however is a grown man who (should) have the common sense to not post spoilers in a thread where no one is talking about spoilers. (he really should know/even said himself it was fucked up)
I know you said the reason was because of a "non-retroactive punishment policy" but to be fair, i saw this policy on the rule page before this incident the same as I saw spoiler rules. Not at all.
5542
« on: August 30, 2015, 04:56:49 PM »
Daily reminder that you people didn't vote for Strict moderation when you had the chance.
if you report the post with 'Spoiler - Reason why (if it's not obvious)' then there are enough mods around to see it within a reasonable timeframe.
If by reasonable you mean 10 minutes - 3 hours then sure. It's totally reasonable.
5543
« on: August 30, 2015, 03:00:17 PM »
Professional hockey or baseball player.
Realistic job is psychologist in my own practice.
5544
« on: August 30, 2015, 02:54:07 PM »
Why? It's not my choice they decided to do so.
5545
« on: August 30, 2015, 02:40:07 PM »
i love Deci's response. Just utter shock.
5546
« on: August 30, 2015, 01:51:57 PM »
Oh he actually went through with it.
5547
« on: August 30, 2015, 02:52:40 AM »
*Sips Maple Syrup*
5548
« on: August 30, 2015, 02:50:00 AM »
Yea give the mods hell boy!
Wait a sec...
You've forgotten that I'm essentially the Charles-Henri Sanson of the staff Tblocks. I don't discriminate.
Oh good. I'm relieved. Praise god almighty!
5549
« on: August 30, 2015, 02:43:08 AM »
Yea give the mods hell boy!
Wait a sec...
5550
« on: August 30, 2015, 02:24:22 AM »
Well there goes everything
Pages: 1 ... 183184185 186187 ... 570
|
Show Posts