I'm Exposing here another lucrative promotion
It wasn't that funny, I didn't laugh.Quote: GWAEtroll much?
And I pretty much laugh at everything.
I didn't even laugh at your response, and I almost always laugh at your responses ( pls, just a joke ;-)
Sort of like the last straw in the spurious AP "argument" about not having to prove anything because then there would be nothing to prove.
I might not be in the cool magicians club, but I'm in the super cool AP club!
Quote: RomesI actually think AP's and magicians share a similar bond... If one magician sees another magician perform, or talks to him about his performance, he certainly doesn't mention any details if they're not in private. Similarly, if one AP sees another playing, or talks to him about a play, he certainly doesn't mention any details unless they're in private.
I might not be in the cool magicians club, but I'm in the super cool AP club!
Most* APs...
Quote: WizardofnothingSuspension for trolling???????? I'm afraid to flag or I would
I flagged it
Quote: GWAEI flagged it
Not sure if I can. Don't know if it's inappropriate/spam or "freedom of speech"...
Quote: RSNot sure if I can. Don't know if it's inappropriate/spam or "freedom of speech"...
I think this one falls very safely into the spam/trolling column. Flag away guys!
Quote: RSNot sure if I can. Don't know if it's inappropriate/spam or "freedom of speech"...
My take on it.
Rule 11/12 can't remember which
No bullying/trolling: Members are expected to act like ladies and gentlemen. Members may not be overly divisive or abusive to another member. This includes starting a thread only the for purpose of attacking another member. (Added 2/24/2012). This also includes threats against another member. (added 9/3/12)
From the urban dictionary for definition of a troll
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument
Based on the arguments on the other thread about the plaza this thread was an obvious Crack at those who disagree with him.
I would discourage flagging because if it gets removed then there will be no punishment for trolling which there certainly should be. I am generally against suspensions. Not against like 1bb but on cases like this there is no need for this on the forum.
It's like being convicted of rape and then joking about it.
I would say this qualifiesQuote: GWAE
From the urban dictionary for definition of a troll
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument
.
Quote: GWAEMy take on it.
No bullying/trolling: Members are expected to act like ladies and gentlemen. Members may not be overly divisive or abusive to another member. This includes starting a thread only the for purpose of attacking another member. (Added 2/24/2012). This also includes threats against another member. (added 9/3/12)
From the urban dictionary for definition of a troll
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument
Based on the arguments on the other thread about the plaza this thread was an obvious Crack at those who disagree with him.
I would discourage flagging because if it gets removed then there will be no punishment for trolling which there certainly should be. I am generally against suspensions. Not against like 1bb but on cases like this there is no need for this on the forum.
Agree completely with the bolded.
Anyone may argue about anything. You're free to keep every single thing to yourself; you are likewise free to list every single play you've ever heard of. You're free to argue the merit, the benefit, the harm. Have at it.
But the back in forth in another thread is a bit much, and this particular thread is completely uncalled for.
There are other people here. Please respect the forum.
Oh but then we will be considered all bullies.Quote: PokerGrinderI think this one falls very safely into the spam/trolling column. Flag away guys!
INTERNET BULLYING IS BS. Especially if you're a grown man.
I can make an exception for teens or someone who's seeking help in a desperate situation.
I call foul. Though I haven't double checked the rule for authenticity, I maintain that I cannot act like both 'ladies and gentlemen'. I might be able to briefly pull off one or the other, but to try to do both? I'm doomed to be written in red I fear...;-)Quote: GWAEMy take on it.
Rule 11/12 can't remember which
No bullying/trolling: Members are expected to act like ladies and gentlemen. Members may not be overly divisive or abusive to another member. This includes starting a thread only the for purpose of attacking another member. (Added 2/24/2012). This also includes threats against another member. (added 9/3/12).
Quote: darkozScared ya, didn't I?
Not sure why face agreed this was a troll and didn't go forward, but I agree it's a troll and will. 3 days for trolling the forum.
Oz was prolly joking around. Certainly - more than likely - he was not acting with the intent to actually troll, let alone with the end-result being a suspension. I would think that were he doing something questionable in between, then he achieved his "goal"?Quote: beachbumbabsNot sure why face agreed this was a troll and didn't go forward, but I agree it's a troll and will. 3 days for trolling the forum.
Just seems (to me) that with several moderators overseeing all issues, one of them always finds a mortal fault at each bump in the road.
Quote: beachbumbabsNot sure why face agreed this was a troll and didn't go forward, but I agree it's a troll and will. 3 days for trolling the forum.
It was a freaking joke for crying out loud. It may not have been a good one, people may not have liked it, but we have completely lost our ability to get over it.
I've read most of that other thread and, while I side with the folks that the play should not have been posted originally, I don't think there was any intent to actually hurt anyone. Perhaps it should be a learning experience...
Anyway...
Things have gotten so danged PC in America that people are gunshy of telling any but the most colorless of jokes.
What are we evolving into, a bunch of neutered hamsters?
Quote: WizardofnothingNeutered hamsters are a good thing, ever see how many of their babies they eat?
Yeah...but don't joke about them
Quote: JohnzimboYeah...but don't joke about them
Q: Why was the neutered hamster nick-named "Dark Sider?"
A: Because with him it was always "Don't come."
Quote: mcallister3200Sure it was a joke. Some people think trolling is funny/amusing or else they wouldn't do it.
I do think the kindly people here would have just let it go as a joke, had it not been connected to the other complaint.
Think it's called "pushing your luck".
Here is one.
What does Romes love life and his Blackjack have in common?
He's always hitting on Sixteen.
Quote: AxelWolfPerhaps we can bring back the Joke thread (I liked that thread)
Here is one.
What does Romes love life and his Blackjack have in common?
He's always hitting on Sixteen.
Here's a better joke: AxelWolf can drink more than Romes!
Quote: RSHere's a better joke: AxelWolf can drink more than Romes!
To be fair if the nugget challenge was with alcohol Axel would have crushed it long ago.
P.S I feel like I have heard that BJ joke before somewhere.
Quote: FaceThere are other people here. Please respect the forum.
Quote: beachbumbabsNot sure why face agreed this was a troll and didn't go forward, but I agree it's a troll and will. 3 days for trolling the forum.
It seems pretty simple looking at it from outside the group of moderators. Face called the OP out on in it, and gave him a warning. It looks to me like he thought that was enough moderating for this offense. If he thought that there should be a suspension, it seems like he would have done it (though I don't speak for him, of course) because he was already "moderating" the issue.
It looks like you decided to overrule him and issue the suspension. If you asked Face about it and he agreed, then that should have been noted. What it looks like the way it is now constructed is that a moderator made a decision and then another moderator, for whatever reason, decided that wasn't enough.
Once one moderator makes a call, absent consultation, the call should stand unless the Wiz or someone higher decides differently. I can totally see Mike taking this issue and making the suspension if it was brought to him but I think, absent that, Face's call should be left alone. That being said, I think Face did his job, much like the cop that gives you a warning instead of a ticket, and that should have been that at this level of moderation.
Quote: RonCIt seems pretty simple looking at it from outside the group of moderators. Face called the OP out on in it, and gave him a warning. It looks to me like he thought that was enough moderating for this offense. If he thought that there should be a suspension, it seems like he would have done it (though I don't speak for him, of course) because he was already "moderating" the issue.
It looks like you decided to overrule him and issue the suspension. If you asked Face about it and he agreed, then that should have been noted. What it looks like the way it is now constructed is that a moderator made a decision and then another moderator, for whatever reason, decided that wasn't enough.
Once one moderator makes a call, absent consultation, the call should stand unless the Wiz or someone higher decides differently. I can totally see Mike taking this issue and making the suspension if it was brought to him but I think, absent that, Face's call should be left alone. That being said, I think Face did his job, much like the cop that gives you a warning instead of a ticket, and that should have been that at this level of moderation.
Thanks for your thoughts.
I think that, since 4 people took suspensions for censoring darkoz's post, he should have moved on about 20 baiting and argumentative posts ago, including both the plaza thread and his several posts in this one. It would have been inconsistent moderation to ban all of them, then not give him a time out for trolling the people who disagree with him on this. And there is no disagreement about the trolling, though some see it as a joke and others apparently do not. So I suspended him.
Quote: beachbumbabsThanks for your thoughts.
I think that, since 4 people took suspensions for censoring darkoz's post, he should have moved on about 20 baiting and argumentative posts ago, including both the plaza thread and his several posts in this one. It would have been inconsistent moderation to ban all of them, then not give him a time out for trolling the people who disagree with him on this. And there is no disagreement about the trolling, though some see it as a joke and others apparently do not. So I suspended him.
I said before that I understand it was an offense he could be suspended for based on the rules; I just don't get why one moderator looked at it and made a call and then another came in and dropped the ban hammer. It seems like less than ideal moderation for a post to be busted, the culprit warned and sent on his way, and then to have someone else follow behind and do something different (absent consultation, of course). Maybe you had every "right" to do it; it was not the "right" thing to do in my opinion based on Face's warning already being issued.
