Discussion about the Suspension List
Quote: 1BBWhat happened to the transparency that we used to hear about? JohnCena's name has been red for 12 hours. No entry to the suspension list, no explanation or reason given. Is that a 3 day suspension? All I saw was a guy promoting his candidate. Did he rub someone the wrong way?
He's been a member for 3 weeks and has 34 posts. He's not a one shot poster. "Enough. Goodbye." That's it?
Yep, that's it. And I'm not surprised, at all.
ZCore13
with words that start with 'homo'..
Don't know why EB wasn't 'on top' of the situation.
Stumps me...
Seems the system is working fine, best as I can tell.
Of course we need at least one other opinion, just to be fair.....
Not to mention anyone in particular, of course...;-)
The Wizard's words at the top of the list: "For the benefit of me, as well as others, here is my hall of shame of members who have been suspended". Is the Wizard's intent no longer being honored? Has someone overruled the Wizard? Serious responses only please.
Quote: 1BBThe Wizard's words...
I think that we won't be seeing much of the Wizard's anything anymore. If so, it would be with his usual, in my opinion, lack of much explanation. People let it slide though.
I'm 86'ed again. (Number of posts.)
Quote: 1BBHas there been a change in policy regarding the suspension list? Numerous names have gone red in the past several weeks but not one entry has been made to the list in two months. Are we no longer allowed to see who has been banned and why? Is there a protocol or are entries made at the whim of individual administrators?
The Wizard's words at the top of the list: "For the benefit of me, as well as others, here is my hall of shame of members who have been suspended". Is the Wizard's intent no longer being honored? Has someone overruled the Wizard? Serious responses only please.
LarryS has the answer:
http://www.gamblersglen.com/cgi-bin/teemz/teemz.cgi?board=_master&action=opentopic&topic=2513&forum=General_Discussion
Quote: IbeatyouracesLarryS has the answer:
http://www.gamblersglen.com/cgi-bin/teemz/teemz.cgi?board=_master&action=opentopic&topic=2513&forum=General_Discussion
I still see a fat list of people who visit everyday at the bottom.
I don't know how much that differs from last year or the year before.
(well, it's fat until midnight I guess, then starts a new day)
Quote: rxwineI still see a fat list of people who visit everyday at the bottom.
I don't know how much that differs from last year or the year before.
(well, it's fat until midnight I guess, then starts a new day)
I've figured out one reason why the numbers "appear" lower than they used to. I'm not going to divulge that info though, but I will say I'm certain the "actual" number of visitors hasn't changed.
LarryS was mentioned here. Controversial? Maybe or maybe just a guy who had a different opinion. Are different opinions welcomed here? Larry was banned with no reason given as well. His name is on the list but with no reason given. Transparency?
There was a poster here a while ago who talked about filling a sock with rocks and beating black people. It was done in a very racist way and some here worshiped the ground he walked on. Oh yeah, he had value and some are still pining away for him.
JohnCena was new so no one is going to be too upset to see him go regardless of the circumstances. I think there would be more protest if he had been a longtime member. How sad.
"Hide my online status"
and don't even show up as being here?
Quote: 1BBThe disturbing banning of JohnCena was what prompted my query about the suspension list. Am I going to be suspended for saying query? I pored through his posts in an effort to find anything that could have possibly gotten him banned. I came up empty. In fact I couldn't find anything that in my opinion would have warranted a warning or a 3 day suspension, let alone a ban. A link on the list to his offending words or post would be helpful.
LarryS was mentioned here. Controversial? Maybe or maybe just a guy who had a different opinion. Are different opinions welcomed here? Larry was banned with no reason given as well. His name is on the list but with no reason given. Transparency?
There was a poster here a while ago who talked about filling a sock with rocks and beating black people. It was done in a very racist way and some here worshiped the ground he walked on. Oh yeah, he had value and some are still pining away for him.
JohnCena was new so no one is going to be too upset to see him go regardless of the circumstances. I think there would be more protest if he had been a longtime member. How sad.
He was warned about describing people in incorrect terms regarding their sexuality and continued to argue about it.
He didn't understand why it was wrong and did not heed the warning.
If someone tells you not to say something, and then you keep on saying it, what else would you expect?
There is a way to disagree with a decision of a moderator (specifically, in this case whether it was okay or not to say those kind of things) but just ignoring them is not the way. It doesn't matter what you or I thought of the issue (and I tried to explain to him why it was an issue; he just started PM bombing me until I blocked him)--the moderator spoke and the only way to address that is to go up the chain of command.
...or just question it here and see if anything changes.
"LarryS is nuked. I think we all know why."
It looks like LarryS spent a great deal of time her discussing another board. Now he is on another board discussing this one. I have boards that I was on and am not now. I could give a darn about them. I don't know LarryS but it appears he did not want to listen when others told him to calm down about some things; then he got the nuke.
Quote: RonCThe Wizard did the nuking:
"LarryS is nuked. I think we all know why."
It looks like LarryS spent a great deal of time her discussing another board. Now he is on another board discussing this one. I have boards that I was on and am not now. I could give a darn about them. I don't know LarryS but it appears he did not want to listen when others told him to calm down about some things; then he got the nuke.
All he did was whine and cry about how John Patrick treated him on his own board.
ZCore13
Quote: RonCHe was warned about describing people in incorrect terms regarding their sexuality and continued to argue about it.
He didn't understand why it was wrong and did not heed the warning.
If someone tells you not to say something, and then you keep on saying it, what else would you expect?
There is a way to disagree with a decision of a moderator (specifically, in this case whether it was okay or not to say those kind of things) but just ignoring them is not the way. It doesn't matter what you or I thought of the issue (and I tried to explain to him why it was an issue; he just started PM bombing me until I blocked him)--the moderator spoke and the only way to address that is to go up the chain of command.
...or just question it here and see if anything changes.
For talking back to an administrator he went from a warning to a nuke? I'm not sure what forum rule he broke. I found the guy entertaining just like the Mickey Crimm fans found him entertaining. Which one of them was better behaved?
I'm glad you asked me what I expect. I expect fair treatment for all members. I expect the Martingale to be utilized beginning with a warning then 3 days etc. I would not expect a nuke for a very minor offense, which many don't think of as an offense.
I also would like to propose that before anyone is nuked that it be voted on by at least three administrators. This would not apply to obvious spammers like the fake ID guys.
Does anyone honestly think the forum is better off because JohnCena was banned?
Quote: 1BBFor talking back to an administrator he went from a warning to a nuke?
When an administrator renders a decision, a call, I assume that the member is supposed to respond with an "I get it now, sorry, I'll get it together and follow the rules." Blowing off an administrator's call shows an unwillingness to play by the forum's rules.
Quote: 1BBDoes anyone honestly think the forum is better off because JohnCena was banned?
Apparently the administrators do.
Quote: 1BBFor talking back to an administrator he went from a warning to a nuke? I'm not sure what forum rule he broke. I found the guy entertaining just like the Mickey Crimm fans found him entertaining. Which one of them was better behaved?
I'm glad you asked me what I expect. I expect fair treatment for all members. I expect the Martingale to be utilized beginning with a warning then 3 days etc. I would not expect a nuke for a very minor offense, which many don't think of as an offense.
I also would like to propose that before anyone is nuked that it be voted on by at least three administrators. This would not apply to obvious spammers like the fake ID guys.
Does anyone honestly think the forum is better off because JohnCena was banned?
Little chance Mr Cena was nuked by multiple admins. I'll wager this was the work of only one admin- the one that holds personal grudges.
Quote: PaigowdanWhen an administrator renders a decision, a call, I assume that the member is supposed to respond with an "I get it now, sorry, I'll get it together and follow the rules." Blowing off an administrator's call shows an unwillingness to play by the forum's rules.
Yeah, that's about it.
But, when you "make deals with the devil", distort the truth so as to appear to be right at all cost, and summarily don't follow your own rules, then you end up with a disgraced forum long dead before its time.
By comparison, the Gamblers' Glen was going strong for a dozen years before it's owner vanished a year or two ago. I think the guy died, and had shut off the forum registration and password help before going into the hospital or something. It was a great place to post because people could make their arguments, whichever. Nobody was trying to sell some sort of a personal image. Nothing to "circle the wagons around". A place where I didn't get creepy feelings about having to say things, or about having to read the responses. Thoroughly enjoyable. (The filth there now isn't anything like before.)
Quote: 1BBFor talking back to an administrator he went from a warning to a nuke? I'm not sure what forum rule he broke. I found the guy entertaining just like the Mickey Crimm fans found him entertaining. Which one of them was better behaved?
I'm glad you asked me what I expect. I expect fair treatment for all members. I expect the Martingale to be utilized beginning with a warning then 3 days etc. I would not expect a nuke for a very minor offense, which many don't think of as an offense.
I also would like to propose that before anyone is nuked that it be voted on by at least three administrators. This would not apply to obvious spammers like the fake ID guys.
Does anyone honestly think the forum is better off because JohnCena was banned?
Rule #13--Nuclear option: Finally, if the site administrators feel that a member is so disruptive to the site, even while abiding by the rules above, a "nuclear option" may be invoked to permanently ban the offender. This will be used sparingly for only the worst of trolls. (Added 2/20/11)
I said something to the guy and he sent multiple PMs instead of just letting it go. I didn't report it to anyone, they weren't "that" bad but they were annoying and unnecessary even after I told him that was not the way that I wanted to talk to him.
He somehow thought that making fun of Trump's hair was the same as calling someone a sexual orientation that they are not known to be. He was warned about it by a moderator. Then, over the possible misuse of the word "homophobic" by me, he called me a liar in more than one place. Saying a word is used incorrectly, which what he said that I was doing, is not a reason for him to call me a liar.
He made it painfully obvious that he did not give a crap what the moderator said to him and he got lit up.
There is likely more to the story than that...maybe he was someone else on top of it all. He has recourse; he can talk to the Wizard or whoever if he feels the heave ho was unnecessary. If you think he was valuable member and should not be gone, you can continue to plead for him. The record with folks having nukes overturned and becoming "acceptable citizen" here is not all that good.
Quote: RonCRule #13--Nuclear option: Finally, if the site administrators feel that a member is so disruptive to the site, even while abiding by the rules above, a "nuclear option" may be invoked to permanently ban the offender. This will be used sparingly for only the worst of trolls. (Added 2/20/11)
I said something to the guy and he sent multiple PMs instead of just letting it go. I didn't report it to anyone, they weren't "that" bad but they were annoying and unnecessary even after I told him that was not the way that I wanted to talk to him.
He somehow thought that making fun of Trump's hair was the same as calling someone a sexual orientation that they are not known to be. He was warned about it by a moderator. Then, over the possible misuse of the word "homophobic" by me, he called me a liar in more than one place. Saying something is wrong, which what he was doing was, and using the wrong word is not even close to being a liar.
He made it painfully obvious that he did not give a crap what the moderator said to him and he got lit up.
There is likely more to the story than that...maybe he was someone else on top of it all. He has recourse; he can talk to the Wizard or whoever if he feels the heave ho was unnecessary. If you think he was valuable member and should not be gone, you can continue to plead for him. The record with folks having nukes overturned and becoming "acceptable citizen" here is not all that good.
He also sent me 3 or 4 IM's within about 5 minutes, unsolicited.
Strange kid. Gone is good.
ZCore13
Rule 13 was brought up. I ask everyone to read the last sentence in that rule. Is there anyone here who truly and honestly thinks that JohnCena was the "worst of trolls"? The worst? How many times has that rule been used? Twice? I call it the you haven't broken any rule but I just don't like you rule.
Quote: 1BBInstead of a ban he should have gotten a good piledriver. :-)
He tried engaging him in friendly banner, talking about his recently broken nose. He mentioned that he wasn't the real John Cena. That was a real revelation to me! Holy cow! Someone on here using a name that is not the one they were born with!
I mentioned Rule 13 not because I felt he met it but perhaps that was the rule used to impose the penalty. If he PM'd me, perhaps he also PM'd BBB when he was told to stop doing what he was doing. Maybe the idea is that you don't openly mock a moderator by doing the exact same thing in spite of being warned. That is not really a smart move.
I could have told you when he first started posting that he was not long for the board; just something about him that we may have even seen before in a different format or one of those people who just comes around to break the rules. Who knows.
Maybe a piledriver was what he was given...the nuclear piledriver!! :)
Now when an established member gets a mandated break, then yes, that should be posted. Of course, this is all subjective, but I have always felt the rules were overly complex. There really only needs to be 1 rule. With less rules, there is less to contest, and less post justification required.
"Participants are expected to refrain from name calling and present arguments and rebuttals in a civil manner. Admins who determine Participants have crossed the decorum line, may warn or suspend users at their discretion."
I feel all new members should get a warning first, since so many forums allow just about anything to be written.
JohnCena may have been trying to be a legit user, but he started off on the wrong foot, and when it was pointed out he was over the line, instead of retreating, he got attitude and argumentative. Not a very good start. Perhaps he could have become a good member, or perhaps, he was a reincarnation of a previously banned member. Or that was just the way he was going to be, in which case he was doomed for future banning anyway.
Quote: 1BBWe'll never know JohnCena or what he may have become. The judge, jury and executioner way of doing things should be looked at.
The irony is that we'll certainly know, in the end, it wasn't the trolls who brought down the forum. More like the god-awful brightness or darkness, take your pick.
Quote: 1BBWe'll never know JohnCena or what he may have become. The judge, jury and executioner way of doing things should be looked at.
"Should be looked at", a reasonable request. Whom were you suggesting should do the looking?
I can never quite connect with your incessant criticism of the operation of the Forum that you don't seem to be able to embrace, though there you are, every day. There's a place for you there, I guess. If you quit they'd have to replace you.
Do not misunderstand, I like your stances, but I don't understand them. I really don't.
Quote: TwoFeathersATL"Should be looked at", a reasonable request. Whom were you suggesting should do the looking?
I can never quite connect with your incessant criticism of the operation of the Forum that you don't seem to be able to embrace, though there you are, every day. There's a place for you there, I guess. If you quit they'd have to replace you.
Do not misunderstand, I like your stances, but I don't understand them. I really don't.
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind.
Incessant criticism? Please choose those 50 cent words more carefully if you want to be taken seriously.
Quote: 1BBThe answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind.
Incessant criticism? Please choose those 50 cent words more carefully if you want to be taken seriously.
What? Incessant isn't a good Scrabble word?
Nice reply BTW, just messin' with ya.
I mean no harm.
Quote: TwoFeathersATLWhat? Incessant isn't a good Scrabble word?
Nice reply BTW, just messin' with ya.
I mean no harm.
That's the thing about self-professed "village idiots". They're usually the smartest ones there.
Quote: DoubleOrNothingThat's the thing about self-professed "village idiots". They're usually the smartest ones there.
Probably not. Perhaps just see the world thru a different sort of lens..
Quote: 1BBWe'll never know JohnCena or what he may have become.
Or care. You act like he was kicked out of
the country. There are thousands of forums
he can join, why don't you hunt him down
and hang on his every word.
This place is unbelievable sometimes.
Quote: TwoFeathersATLWhat? Incessant isn't a good Scrabble word?
Nice reply BTW, just messin' with ya.
I mean no harm.
Geez, now I got Bob Dylan song runnin' thru my head, I actually thought it might be Peter, Paul, and Mary. But no, looked it up, it's my old friend Bobby.
And the words were exceptionally pertinent to the response.
I never cease to be amazed....
Good job guy, great job perhaps...!
Quote: EvenBobOr care. You act like he was kicked out of
the country. There are thousands of forums
he can join, why don't you hunt him down
and hang on his every word.
This place is unbelievable sometimes.
Calm down. Take your dog for a walk or go to Walmart and harass the employees.
If you think this is about JohnCena then, yes, unbelievable.
Quote: 1BB
If you think this is about JohnCena then, yes, unbelievable.
I know what it's about, your constant jihad
against a mod. That got old about a year ago.
http://www.gamblersglen.com/cgi-bin/teemz/teemz.cgi?board=_master&action=opentopic&topic=2514&forum=General_Discussion
BTW, I wonder who "GG" was that made one post here and got the boot before I could read it. I needed a good laugh.
Quote: IbeatyouracesLarryS is still crying about his banning"...
http://www.gamblersglen.com/cgi-bin/teemz/teemz.cgi?board=_master&action=opentopic&topic=2514&forum=General_Discussion
BTW, I wonder who "GG" was that made one post here and got the boot before I could read it. I needed a good laugh.
Not my banning so I can't tell you what it said, but there is no other ID associated with that account in the system. Could be anybody from anywhere.
Edit: I'm told it was a previously banned member who posted derogatory comments about the forum and moderation in his "first" post. See Rule 12.
Has there been a policy change regarding the suspension list? Names still go red but nothing has been entered on the list for two months. I'm not referring to obvious spammers or one time posters. Where is the transparency that has been so proudly talked about?
Is this "hall of shame" that has brought such joy to some here gone the way of the dinosaur? Is it a good idea to summarily ban members under a cloak of secrecy with no explanation?
Quote: 1BBI read the link to the Gambler's Glen site and Larry brings up some of the things that I've been inquiring about. No one has seen fit to respond to my legitimate questions.
Has there been a policy change regarding the suspension list? Names still go red but nothing has been entered on the list for two months. I'm not referring to obvious spammers or one time posters. Where is the transparency that has been so proudly talked about?
Is this "hall of shame" that has brought such joy to some here gone the way of the dinosaur? Is it a good idea to summarily ban members under a cloak of secrecy with no explanation?
I think the newer names in red are pissed off former members. No need to keep adding them.
Quote: IbeatyouracesI think the newer names in red are pissed off former members. No need to keep adding them.
That's correct.
Honestly, though, if anyone is really THAT bothered by it, then I suppose we could go to updating the SL with every Suspension. Though, for the record, I don't believe I've ever consistently updated it for straight up Spam. Moreover, I know I did not always update it for a Multi-Accounter if I had Nuked them with them only making a limited number of posts.
Quote: 1BBI read the link to the Gambler's Glen site and Larry brings up some of the things that I've been inquiring about. No one has seen fit to respond to my legitimate questions.
Maybe all the mods and admin have blocked you.
Quote: Mission146That's correct.
Honestly, though, if anyone is really THAT bothered by it, then I suppose we could go to updating the SL with every Suspension. Though, for the record, I don't believe I've ever consistently updated it for straight up Spam. Moreover, I know I did not always update it for a Multi-Accounter if I had Nuked them with them only making a limited number of posts.
Anybody THAT bothered by it, especially former members, need psychiatric help!
Quote: IbeatyouracesAnybody THAT bothered by it, especially former members, need psychiatric help!
Some folks just can't learn how to play nice with others, and whine when they reap what they sow.
Napoleon had Elba; he's got GG.
Keep on roaring, little guy.
Quote: rxwineMaybe all the mods and admin have blocked you.
You don't seem to have a very high opinion of our hard working administrators, in my humble opinion. They certainly have the ability to block me but I doubt that they have. One of their duties, I assume, is to monitor all posts. To even hint that they may be in dereliction of that duty is insulting to them, in my humble opinion.
Quote: MrV...Napoleon had Elba; he's got GG...
When you go back there, inform him that members who "hide their online status" like me DO NOT count towards the number of visitors count. He seems to think the number is lower since the update and it's actually not.
He reads this board, he'll read your message.
FWIW, my status is hidden as well, so I am not counted as a visitor either.
I'll try to remember to update the list tomorrow, it's a pain from my phone.
Also, he'll only be Unsuspended when his time is up on the condition he changes his avatar.
