sosgemini said:

Hey atleast you received a few notes from mods, hell when Ian was around I got deleted twice not even knowing I had strikes against me, just woke-up one morning and BAM I was gone.

Paisley said:

Ian was in a league of his own with that sorta shit.

cborgman said:

ive always found the following rule to be counterproductive to the natural flow of this site:

Moderators have absolute rights.
prince.org administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit, relocate and/or remove any message, at any time, for any reason. Consider all editing decisions final. If you don't agree with a decision, you may discuss it with the moderator who made the judgement in private, but you aren't 'entitled' to a "hearing" or even a response. The rules outlined on this page, above, will be used as moderation guidelines.

by giving mods "absoulute right" and stiffling discussion, could it actually be making things nastier here?

bkw said:

And it was wrong too I thought a person was supposed to be given a warning before being deactivated?

sosgemini said:

Yes, those are viable alternatives (putting aside Ben being away on vacation). However, I should point out that one of the reasons for implementing the "strike system" was consistency in how we handle account locking. It's just like baseball... "three strikes and you're out."

As for the orgNotes, if you've taken offense at any orgNotes from me, I welcome a private discussion of the issue.

sosgemini said:

since there are unfortunately, a few bad apples that can not control their rudeness no matter how many times they maange to get themselves deactivated, i see that rule as an absolute must.

and no, i don't mean you or C. i have never hadtrouble with C before, that's why the whole thing was such a shock to me.

Ian was and still is an ego fucking maniac and anyone with a brain knows it..all u had to do was stroke his ego and u had him in your pocket..beliee em I know...and I also knew that since he had that aire about him that the moment he "felt" undermined he would becomne a tyrant

matt said:

blah blah blah--just reactivate the C and go back to your busines fucking melissa etc

matt said:

no no no...i wasnt refering to your action against me..actually, i dont think you ever have had to take action against me...i was talking 'bout "others"..

and you all gotta three strikes systems? there are way *WAY* too many rules here...as the one year anniversary approaches for my company one of the things we all agreed on was "keep it simple, stupid"...all the rules and procedures were counterproductive to our goals...

you all got so many does and donts no wonder people are so crabby here...

rdhull said:

wow... completely unneccesary

cborgman said:

I disagree--very neccessary

cborgman said:

yeah, but here is the kicker, if you have a skilled moderator "moderating" issues, people dont need to be deactivated...i still hold Kat (from imusic) as the standard for moderation...she handled some nasty sh*t and never once lost her cool..i think matt has been doing a pretty good job when he is here...ian started off horribly...but he matured decently..but he did have his freak out moments...


and why would i think you were talking 'bout me? ive never been deactivated...


seriously!

rdhull said:

how?

that was a totally uncalled for personal punch below the belt.

cborgman said:

No it wasnt --he publicly stated his poly stuff etc so dont trip and I also dont need you to try and chide me. Please get off your high horse or off my thread if u are offended etc.

sosgemini said:

just said it as a pre-emptive in case. part of the whole thick skin thing.

i don't think even the best of moderators can prevent deactivation. there are too many people to which a deactivation really means nothing. aaron has repeatedly been deactivated, and it doesn't slow him down in the slightest, and he has made jokes about it multiple times, so, no i am not starting anything with him.

rdhull said:

don't chide you? it has nothing to do with you. if anyone should be telling anyone to butt out, it should be me.

and because matt has a relationship different from yours that gives everyone permission to use it as a way to try to piss him off? RD, you are so much more an evolved person than this kind of stuff.

let it go

cborgman said:

I have...I just asked why C got deactiovated..and I dound out why and now think Matt needs to reactivate C and I will say so. Just liek yall all do when you feel someone is deactivate d or have left and yearn for their return. Now YOU let it go and leave me to mine.

rdhull said:

it's none of your business, rd, i am sorry but it's not. it has nothing to do with you in any way, shape or form, and when matt explained the rules that you know to begin with, you start hurtling insults because you are not pleased with the results.

it's juvenile and petty.

and completely beneath an intelligent person like yourself

cborgman said:

of course deactivation is warranted, like when someone is stalking or harrasing but...just cause someone's lil feelings were hurt? NO WAY!!!

why? cause thats all subjective...thats why having too many rules can be a forum killer...some people end up being targets and are extremely moderated..others are left to make slam after slam...(50% of the p/r forum at times...hehehe)...

thats why i say, let the moderators moderate...and kill all the rules...within that organic growth is the solution to a successful online forum...

the answer is always a beautiful gray (something else i live and die by)..

cborgman said:

what a condenscending prick you've have become in your yo-yo years...please stop responding to me..seriously

cborgman said:

maybe you should have left these parts out...

rdhull said:

and for the record, i have never, nor will i ever publicly demand someone that has been deactivated be reactivated, even when it was a friend of mine. i make it a point to never disagree with with deactivation decisions, because i realize that i don't see everything that goes on.

for a perfect example, i amazed icenine is banned while people who continually start stuff no matter how many times they are warned and deactivated still are here. but i ain't about to demand the deactivation of those people, or demand that icenine be reactivated.

cborgman said:

sosgemini said:

gwm syndrome lol

sosgemini said:

Yes. I assumed it was common knowledge, but I just looked in the prince.org Site Discussion forum and couldn't find anything about it.

Anyway, we were getting complaints that account-locking decisions were being made inconsistently. User X would do something and get banned, while user Y would do something similar and not get banned. The strike system was created as a way for us to be more consistent. Perhaps more importantly, it allows us to keep logs of moderation actions (and I should mention that notes can be posted to a user's record without a strike being issued).

The system is set up so that when a third strike is issued by a moderator, the account gets locked. Our procedure is to email the user when this happens and invite him/her to discuss the issue. Usually an agreement is reached, a strike (or all three) is removed, and the user comes back.

sosgemini said:

for the record:

i was being serious when i said you should have left the above comments out..it completly killed all momentum you had going with your end of the discussion..

the gigle was for the fact that you didnt realize that...

(get it? got it? good!!)

sosgemini said:

Okay... I think it's time to put this thread out of its misery.