Discussion in 'Communications' started by dp4m, May 4, 2007.
Yeah, really you got me on that one!
You JCCers and your 'wit'.
Can I QFT the last 10 posts or so?
Yeah... me too...
I'm cool with how the mods explained its handled now. GTHOTB is fine.... its just seeing GTHO n00b that bothered me.
Now that this discussion is basically over let GTHO of the subject.
Did he REALLY just go there????
Just for future reference it probably would have been completely adverted had you just said something to Quest or Marcus before raising a stink in in here. Because everyone knows, Comms is Serious Business. But I guess this works too.
I just can see this flimsy rule getting blurred later to include GTHOTB and if that happens I will go ape in here, as will THOUSANDS of others. Believe me no one wants that.
I think Daj's version of 'Get the hell off' works better for getting off the subject. But I concur, and again I guess it works.
Thousands going ape, eh? That might be quite entertaining.
Can you say, "Remove Forum"?
Damn shame you can't say "Remove Head Admin".
I mean, whats all this about? Is this true?
I no... srsly. Whats with the video game forum? I think they think they're the JCC or something. In their dreams.
I want to go to the place that is pink.
Let's stop the JCC vs Games hilarity, they both have their charm and all that good stuff.
No, just my happy place.
And srsly, QFT. It's making me all angsty.
Its logical to feel threatened.
Tell you what, I'll rephrase that.
Did the head admin break the terms of service in a debate about another moderators demotion, by falsly suggesting that the mod in question basically agreed or sympathized with his decision?
RULES OF CONDUCT
User agrees not to post material that is knowingly false and/or defamatory, misleading, inaccurate,
Anybody? Or if that's an internal MS matter, is it going to be looked into?
I daresay, you've not an idea of what you're talking about.
Oh, how I love a good witchunt.
And, really, it isn't anyone's business what private discussions did or didn't occur in this case. It should be resolved between malkie and the admins, not aired in Comms.
There weren't any private discussions, and I do take your point that the Moderate Complaint Process was primarly designed to give users an organised structured voice when they had issue with a moderator. It's clear in that process that the moderator is asked to give their side of events, which I feel should extend to moderators with which the administration have issue with. Is an admin willing to comment on that?
I also take your point that public discussion of private conversations on a single matter perhaps shouldn't be the subject of a comms dramafest. However, that is ultimately my problem - how can you "take something to PMs", when the issue is a lack of trust in the administration to make up contents of PMs and pass them on?
I do feel it perhaps is a matter of public interest that a person in a position of significant responsibility will happily say that a private conversation took place which did not. It is of particular importance because the comments were posted private board, where a fabricated conversation could be posted without fear of the person implicated pointing out its inaccuracy. That isn't something you can take to PMs because there's no trust with which to hold a conversation.
Furthermore the fabricated exchange supported the decision made by this person, and to some extent may have limited other admins/mods questioning the decision as it appears I agreed with it in advance.
Wow, real nice. I'm not upset about this. I can handle it.
Let me just say this. If you ever find yourself banned for whatever reason, and I'm not suggesting anything you did is close to it or there's any danger of it, but I would not discuss your ban or its specifics in public either no matter what you said in public, positive or negative. No matter if you're a current mod, former mod, or regular user, nothing will be disclosed in public. We're not responding because that's always been the rule even before I joined.
As far as the GTHO and the GTH....Force boat, I'm glad we've moved towards understanding there as well. This isn't something that needs to be added to the TOS. It really comes down to context, forum, who said it, and to whom it was said. If we're telling brand new users to get out of Dodge, I have a problem with that. If there's a new user venturing into a new forum, let's not go telling them to get the hell out.
lol OH SNAP lol
The foot of the law is heavy.
I think I will make 10-20 socks and post a new thread, all redundant of course, everyday until the users get tired of it and tell me to 'get out of Dodge'. I can't wait. What do you think Sapes?
I dare say you may get swept, chim chimmeny cha-roo.
Damn, did I miss stepping time?
People... you're arguing something that isn't going to be changed. No one is taking your right to say GTHOTB. Chim, that's the last time I'm telling you to drop it. This is a warning from your friendly Comms mod that means editing/warning and (I'm shuddering with anticipation here...) banning comes next. With a gun!
I'm not trying to argue a point or anything here but just admiting that I must be a real dork. I always thought GTHOTB was Get The Hell Of The Boards.
Personally, I'm not asking you to comment on any ban - I've always understood that policy - you need to see the whole story, and in most cases everyone isn't aware of the back story.
However, I would like you to comment on you posting comments in a private forum which were false. Why did you do that? It's particularly important because the things you posted which were false supported your decision making, and actually made your decision-making look particularly sound. Just a quick explanation is fine, I'm not looking to drag it out or anything