It's no wonder people are being banned...

[timmytuttut88]

I just don't get how you can join a community that's been provided to you free of charge by someone else, is the property of someone else, and then you act like it's your god-given right to say how things should be!

"I am relatively new to the site, and just recently started browsing the forums"
Well once you're here for awhile you'll realize that there are quite a few problems with this site. It's not like people all start complaining about the same thing because "they feel like it". Most of the people here who are upset have a valid reason.

That would really show 'em. Maybe even <gasp> start your own forum! I think it's highly unlikely that you all are "helping" the situation with your current behavior, so I guess I'll be "sitting by and waiting for you to finish".

With your "like it or go home attitude" I wouldn't be surprised if your first on the list to join TeamCC.

To use your example, if I'm continually visiting a doctor who prescribes me nothing but advil, he tells me, "tough luck, i know what's best for you and it's advil," and the headaches keep coming back, am I going to go to that doctor every day just to complain about how poor of a doctor he is? Am I going to sit in the waiting room every day, and moan on and on about the headache? Am I going to demand that I have brain surgery immediately? Or would I go to a different doctor? What if it turns out the doctor is right, and Advil is what I need? After all, I'm not a doctor.

Good try, but this doesn't make sense. This would be assuming that there are "plenty of other websites to go to just like this one" just like how there are plenty of other doctors. Plus you're assuming that only a few people are complaining, but there are plenty of people in the forums that know that things need to be changed.

I mean seriously, there have been so many unwarranted bans of contributing posters that it's pretty ridiculous. If you look at the list of people who have the most posts, a lot of them have been banned for reasons that they don't even know themselves. And no, it's not because "the good guys suddenly went bad".

[Mr Changsha]

Now, I'm not privy to all that's happened to lead up to this, and I really don't care, but I think if I had the ban hammer to swing I'd be out of breath.

I understand your desire to voice your concern, and it is great that you are doing so, however if you are to voice your concern you should care what happened to lead up to this, because that could be an issue that continually repeats itself and causes the same response forever down the line. If this is the case the issue should be stopped.

I assume though that you just felt that we would flame you or tell you to go read what happened, so you felt the need to say "I don't care"... that is fine if you aren't going to post on the matter, but like a fair judge you are going to need to hear everyone's side of the story before you make a decision on who is right and who is wrong.

Imagine if you had a tumor in your brain and because of it you were having awful headaches. You go into the doctor and he said "well I don't know what happened to cause these headaches and I don't really care, but the headaches have to stop." So he gives you advil and sends you home. The tumor is still there, and if he doesn't try to stop the root of the problem then the headaches will be there forever, even if the medicine works for a couple of weeks or months.

So some people are trying to cure the root of the problem, while others call them complainers and tell them there is no problem. Yes, it's a nasty thing to see on the forums, however people who were here for years want to fix a bad problem they see on the forums, and it's going to take some heavy scrubbing if you know what I mean. You can either help or sit by and wait for them to finish.

Fair point. Let me restate. I didn't mean that I don't care what happened, I meant that regardless of what happened, and who was right or wrong, the derogatory comments and continual stone-throwing at the mods is a pointless knee-jerk overreaction, regardless of what happened. I will read some of this past stuff and see if I can find where the animosity originates, but I can already be certain that whatever it was doesn't warrant this type of behavior. And why I'm also certain that if I was one of these mods, I'd be banning people too.

I just don't get how you can join a community that's been provided to you free of charge by someone else, is the property of someone else, and then you act like it's your god-given right to say how things should be!

You say that this is because they are trying to address the root of the problem. If you mean that the root of the problems are the mods and admins, why don't you just not log in anymore? Find another forum, perhaps. That would really show 'em. Maybe even <gasp> start your own forum! I think it's highly unlikely that you all are "helping" the situation with your current behavior, so I guess I'll be "sitting by and waiting for you to finish".

To use your example, if I'm continually visiting a doctor who prescribes me nothing but advil, he tells me, "tough luck, i know what's best for you and it's advil," and the headaches keep coming back, am I going to go to that doctor every day just to complain about how poor of a doctor he is? Am I going to sit in the waiting room every day, and moan on and on about the headache? Am I going to demand that I have brain surgery immediately? Or would I go to a different doctor? What if it turns out the doctor is right, and Advil is what I need? After all, I'm not a doctor.

These doctors say that Advil is what you get. I think you need to keep in mind that at the end of the day, this is someone else's place. If you have a problem with their rules or actions, it might not be the place for you.

However, since there seem to be a lot of you that like it this way, maybe it's not the place for me.

I really liked the bolded part. It effectively states that the writer has zip understanding of what he's writing about, apparently glories in that comprehensive lack of understanding, and even more wonderfully, feels absolutely no need to go and inform himself about the issue because...

but I can already be certain that whatever it was doesn't warrant this type of behavior

What are you basing that statement on...blind faith? One can only imagine the catastrophic events you stumble into daily with this kind of 'thought' process.

I understand wanting to make a bit of an impact here by questioning the orthadoxy of the place, but your lamentable lack of research into the topic you are writing about just screams ignorance.

Very poor show indeed. C- must do better next time.

[Georgerx7di]

[soapbox]
I am relatively new to the site, and just recently started browsing the forums, but, I'm awfully surprised at how much animosity people have in their posts when referring to or directly addressing the admins/mods/site owners, etc.

Now, I'm not privy to all that's happened to lead up to this, and I really don't care, but I think if I had the ban hammer to swing I'd be out of breath.

I'm not looking to flame anyone in particular, or kiss any ass, I just think folks could show a little appreciation/courtesy for people that are doing work, most of them for free, to support this place. If you really don't agree with them, or really don't like this place, instead of trolling on here trying to start fights with the admins and mods, maybe you should consider other ways to spend your time.

I'm sure you're probably discouraging other potential new players and members of the forum with this kind of behavior. I am members of other forums that are really like a community, but not this one. I like this place, and I have fun with the games, but the forum is nothing I'll spend a lot of time on until this type of thing stops. I'm sure you will remind me that you will be no worse for the loss.
[/soapbox]

After half a sentence my gut reaction was go f..., well you get the idea. Strangely though, after a while I have to admit that you make a really good point. The mods who are doing this for free really do deserve some thanks instead of all this bitching. And this was actually a very well written post (except the "I am members" part).

Anyways, I actually agree with most of this. May even send a thank you to all the mods who work for free. I'll still bitch to the guys who get paid though. Andy, can we have a list of all the mods and which ones get paid and which don't?

[Timminz]

The change in the amount of bans being issued stems from a change in mod/admin behaviour. Either that, or a lot of long-standing, regular contributors to the forum have all had an unexplainable shift in attitude at around the same time.

I can tell you, with certainty, which of those two options at least one of the admins thinks is the case.

[4myGod]

Fair point. Let me restate. I didn't mean that I don't care what happened, I meant that regardless of what happened, and who was right or wrong, the derogatory comments and continual stone-throwing at the mods is a pointless knee-jerk overreaction, regardless of what happened. I will read some of this past stuff and see if I can find where the animosity originates, but I can already be certain that whatever it was doesn't warrant this type of behavior. And why I'm also certain that if I was one of these mods, I'd be banning people too.

I just don't get how you can join a community that's been provided to you free of charge by someone else, is the property of someone else, and then you act like it's your god-given right to say how things should be!

You say that this is because they are trying to address the root of the problem. If you mean that the root of the problems are the mods and admins, why don't you just not log in anymore? Find another forum, perhaps. That would really show 'em. Maybe even <gasp> start your own forum! I think it's highly unlikely that you all are "helping" the situation with your current behavior, so I guess I'll be "sitting by and waiting for you to finish".

To use your example, if I'm continually visiting a doctor who prescribes me nothing but advil, he tells me, "tough luck, i know what's best for you and it's advil," and the headaches keep coming back, am I going to go to that doctor every day just to complain about how poor of a doctor he is? Am I going to sit in the waiting room every day, and moan on and on about the headache? Am I going to demand that I have brain surgery immediately? Or would I go to a different doctor? What if it turns out the doctor is right, and Advil is what I need? After all, I'm not a doctor.

These doctors say that Advil is what you get. I think you need to keep in mind that at the end of the day, this is someone else's place. If you have a problem with their rules or actions, it might not be the place for you.

However, since there seem to be a lot of you that like it this way, maybe it's not the place for me.

It sounds as if the gist of your idea is, these forums aren't ours, therefor if we don't like the way they are being run, whether we have good reason or not, we should leave and find a new website.

This is understandable from the point of view from someone who just came to the site and looked it over, however to some of those guys out there who have put A LOT of time/effort into helping create the site what it is today, they might disagree. They feel that this site is as much theirs as it is lacks. Everyone knows lack owns it, however some people feel they have been wronged, and they are going to fight it.

Here is the problems I have noticed people complain about in my short time here:

1. The escalating ban gets too high with a perma ban after 6 minor offenses.
2. The rules are too general which makes it so that nearly every post on the board can be breaking one of the rules if a mod wanted it to.
3. Perhaps because of 1 & 2, the mods end up punishing people unequally, some getting punished for the same thing others are doing without getting punished.

Right now we are working in a thread to lessen the 6 months, and soon after will probably help Team CC fix the other problems, however now what people are complaining about is that their old friends who got banned on what soon will be "the old system" are not going to be unbanned. So they are pushing to get their friends back here because they feel they were unfairly banned.

You need to be careful bud, not everyone is a rock, some people have emotions. And relationships online that last years are the same to some people as relationships in real life that last years. Then when someone takes away from them what they have it distresses them.

I have seen other forums where certain regulars from here frequent, however it's not the same because they are connected to everyone who plays this game, it's the community they are addicted to, not just the forums.

[Fruitcake]

How many more admin/mod generated pseudo members are we going to see?

[Artimis]

How many more admin/mod generated pseudo members are we going to see?

How long is a piece of string?

[72o]

Ok, I figured I would take a lot of flak for not having all the facts before speaking. I will refrain from making judgment until I have read everything that you tell me is relevant to the current situation. Mr. C, please feel free to provide your approval/disapproval of my research efforts, or lack thereof.

The 3 posts I was referred to earlier, about the "blandification" of the forums, didn't appear to me to be somehow indicative of a radical shift in mod/admin behavior towards a 'thought police' type of mentality. Here are my thoughts on what I was told to read (all of this is in my opinion):

They played a joke on April Fool's Day. They made the website pink, and modified a lot of other details that probably took some effort and time. They removed the flame wars forum and replaced it with a fluff forum. Several people said, to paraphrase, "I will never come back because of this, even if they change it back". That is an overreaction, in my opinion. If you don't agree, let's discuss. If there were other parts of that thread that displayed the mod hatemongering you attest to, let's quote them.

Flame wars was not reinstated after April Fool's Day. As was mentioned several times, they had talked about removing Flame Wars for some time, and it was on its way out. That 20-page thread is full of useless flames at either side of the argument, with little actual discussion. The main point I got from the pro-Flame Wars side was the insistence that you all should have been notified, been given a valid reason for removing the forum, and apparently all been asked to give your blessing to this decision.

This doesn't make sense to me. As was mentioned in the thread, there is probably some monetary impact to the site of having an entire subforum that is full of explicit language, racism, bigotry, and god knows what else kinds of insults. I don't know, I wasn't here, but I get the idea. Like it or not, Lack owns this business, and I'm quite certain he doesn't feel that he should have to relinquish any potential additional revenue if the pro-flame wars guys tell him to. Sure, some of them have likely made large investments of time and efforts into this site. That doesn't make it any less his decision. They were permitted to reap the benefits (better gameplay) of their efforts during their time here.

The argument that "this will only increase flames outside of flame wars" misses the point entirely. The flames in flame wars gives the impressions that flames are acceptable on this site. Apparently that is not the intended impression. They don't want flaming on this site at all. So, when the flaming returns outside of flame wars, it is now enforceable with the inevitable bans. The fact that more people are getting banned now is because they couldn't refrain from the flaming that they had become so accustomed to. That seems logical to me.

For the complaints about the number of banned members and the escalating ban getting too high, I will defer my comments until I am adequately prepared for a discussion. I don't have enough information to speak intelligently on the topic. I would appreciate any references to threads/posts/anything that would give me a starting point for understanding the severity of the banning epidemic.

I don't pretend to be an authority on this subject, or any other for that matter. I'd just like to create a discussion that would actually be focused on issues and their possible resolution, and possibly curtail the pointless insult-hurling of the mods and admins that many threads seem to devolve into.

For the record, I'm not a admin/mod multi, nor am I friends with any of them, related to them, etc. I don't have any aspirations to be a member of their team, I have no ulterior motive. I just like to browse the forum while I'm waiting for turns, and found that too many threads are the same folks with the same contempt for the current "administration".

[bedub1]

For the complaints about the number of banned members and the escalating ban getting too high, I will defer my comments until I am adequately prepared for a discussion. I don't have enough information to speak intelligently on the topic. I would appreciate any references to threads/posts/anything that would give me a starting point for understanding the severity of the banning epidemic.

I don't pretend to be an authority on this subject, or any other for that matter. I'd just like to create a discussion that would actually be focused on issues and their possible resolution, and possibly curtail the pointless insult-hurling of the mods and admins that many threads seem to devolve into.

For the record, I'm not a admin/mod multi, nor am I friends with any of them, related to them, etc. I don't have any aspirations to be a member of their team, I have no ulterior motive. I just like to browse the forum while I'm waiting for turns, and found that too many threads are the same folks with the same contempt for the current "administration".

I just received a formal warning for posting a picture of Michelangelo's David. I'd post a link to Wikipedia so you know what I'm talking about, but I can't do that because it includes a picture of the statue. The statue can also be seen with Googles Image search filter set to "Strict". I'm waiting to try it against a sonicwall content filtering firewall and see if it's "bad".

[4myGod]

Ok, I figured... same contempt for the current "administration".

Supposedly the thread that got Dancing Mustard perma-banned is in my signature, feel free to read that as well, try to separate people from each other when reading comments. Often times you can easily group up a whole side saying they are full of nothing but spammers and flamers, when in reality there is a few individuals who are fighting for the same cause but using a less aggressive approach.

It is going to be hard for anyone to take your opinion seriously though as you have already shown that you have a huge bias towards the mods/admins and that you think no matter what the situation is everyone who is against the mods/admins are wrong.

[72o]

I just received a formal warning for posting a picture of Michelangelo's David. I'd post a link to Wikipedia so you know what I'm talking about, but I can't do that because it includes a picture of the statue. The statue can also be seen with Googles Image search filter set to "Strict". I'm waiting to try it against a sonicwall content filtering firewall and see if it's "bad".

I understand your predicament, but it's pretty clear in the forum rules:

* Any images or textual descriptions of sexual activity or nudity - nipples, areola, genitals, anuses etc - whether intended as artistic, erotic, pornographic or otherwise are not allowed.
* This includes content posted here and links to other sites. Posting NSFW - "Not Suitable For Work" - does not make it ok for posting.
* If it is ambiguous, we'll ask you to remove it anyway, so "It's a guy's nipple" isn't going to fly. You're just trying to be annoying at that point.
* Posting a painting from the 13th century with exposed nipples to claim that we're evil dictators when we ask you to remove it is also just being annoying, and you're probably just being a troll at that point.

Pornography in chat or in the forums will frequently earn an immediate 24-hour vacation, even without a warning first.

So, I don't think it matters whether Google Image search or sonicwall or netnanny or whoever deems it acceptable, it's apparently not here. Heed the warning by reviewing the rules and your content prior to posting in the future.

[timmytuttut88]

Ok, I figured I would take a lot of flak for not having all the facts before speaking.

*facepalm*

They removed the flame wars forum and replaced it with a fluff forum. Several people said, to paraphrase, "I will never come back because of this, even if they change it back".

I don't remember people saying that, but if they did that is very over the top. I remember more of the "I'm leaving because you got rid of FWs".

That 20-page thread is full of useless flames at either side of the argument, with little actual discussion. The main point I got from the pro-Flame Wars side was the insistence that you all should have been notified, been given a valid reason for removing the forum, and apparently all been asked to give your blessing to this decision.

The bolded part is completely wrong. It wasn't a thread, they got rid of an entire forum with around 100000 posts in it.

This doesn't make sense to me. As was mentioned in the thread, there is probably some monetary impact to the site of having an entire subforum that is full of explicit language, racism, bigotry, and god knows what else kinds of insults.

You should just leave. Your posts are just lies made up by your complete ignorance on the situation. Please look things up before posting them. Racism, bigotry, and some forms of explicit language were completely not allowed in FWs.

I don't know

Quite true.

Like it or not, Lack owns this business, and I'm quite certain he doesn't feel that he should have to relinquish any potential additional revenue if the pro-flame wars guys tell him to. Sure, some of them have likely made large investments of time and efforts into this site. That doesn't make it any less his decision. They were permitted to reap the benefits (better gameplay) of their efforts during their time here.

This seems to be the fight song of all the administrators here. "We had no reason to do that, but we did it anyway because we can".

The argument that "this will only increase flames outside of flame wars" misses the point entirely. The flames in flame wars gives the impressions that flames are acceptable on this site. Apparently that is not the intended impression. They don't want flaming on this site at all. So, when the flaming returns outside of flame wars, it is now enforceable with the inevitable bans. The fact that more people are getting banned now is because they couldn't refrain from the flaming that they had become so accustomed to. That seems logical to me.

People got banned from flaming outside of flamewars anyway. Plus you can't say that "the flaming has decreased in these forums", because honestly, i've seen an increase with flames even from people who weren't FW activists.

For the complaints about the number of banned members and the escalating ban getting too high, I will defer my comments until I am adequately prepared for a discussion. I don't have enough information to speak intelligently on the topic. I would appreciate any references to threads/posts/anything that would give me a starting point for understanding the severity of the banning epidemic.

This subject would backtrack all the way to January 2008 when norse was banned. But I don't know all the details about what happened during then because I only had 8 posts during that time. Someone else will probably tell you.

For the record, I'm not a admin/mod multi

You remind me a lot of Twill actually...

I just like to browse the forum while I'm waiting for turns, and found that too many threads are the same folks with the same contempt for the current "administration".

Well most people come out against the people complaining at first, but sooner or later realize that most of us are right when we say there are major problems with how the ban system works.

[4myGod]

I just received a formal warning for posting a picture of Michelangelo's David. I'd post a link to Wikipedia so you know what I'm talking about, but I can't do that because it includes a picture of the statue. The statue can also be seen with Googles Image search filter set to "Strict". I'm waiting to try it against a sonicwall content filtering firewall and see if it's "bad".

I understand your predicament, but it's pretty clear in the forum rules:

* Any images or textual descriptions of sexual activity or nudity - nipples, areola, genitals, anuses etc - whether intended as artistic, erotic, pornographic or otherwise are not allowed.
* This includes content posted here and links to other sites. Posting NSFW - "Not Suitable For Work" - does not make it ok for posting.
* If it is ambiguous, we'll ask you to remove it anyway, so "It's a guy's nipple" isn't going to fly. You're just trying to be annoying at that point.
* Posting a painting from the 13th century with exposed nipples to claim that we're evil dictators when we ask you to remove it is also just being annoying, and you're probably just being a troll at that point.

Pornography in chat or in the forums will frequently earn an immediate 24-hour vacation, even without a warning first.

So, I don't think it matters whether Google Image search or sonicwall or netnanny or whoever deems it acceptable, it's apparently not here. Heed the warning by reviewing the rules and your content prior to posting in the future.

Yet King_Herpes gets away with posting a full topic on sexual activity:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=94063

So let's all just pretend that upon one glorious day we were presented with the opportunity to engage in vaginal intercourse or penile insertion with another Conquer Club member.

and cowboyz:
viewtopic.php?f=213&t=93732&hilit=penis&start=45#p2153968

I sometimes occasionally suck the penis of strange men. My vote stays with PMC

and GabonX:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=91516&hilit=vagina

We haven't had sex but my hand was on her vagina the first two days I knew her.........................................

Where is the justice?

[72o]

Ok, I figured I would take a lot of flak for not having all the facts before speaking.

*facepalm*

This was a response to Mr. Changsha's commentary. I'd be glad to review whatever information you're privy to that is so persuasive, that I must be an idiot for not knowing. Please provide facts, so that we can discuss.

They removed the flame wars forum and replaced it with a fluff forum. Several people said, to paraphrase, "I will never come back because of this, even if they change it back".

I don't remember people saying that, but if they did that is very over the top. I remember more of the "I'm leaving because you got rid of FWs".

Several folks said it in the "Cutesy Club" thread. It became much more serious in the "fix please" and "Flame Wars Removed" thread.

That 20-page thread is full of useless flames at either side of the argument, with little actual discussion. The main point I got from the pro-Flame Wars side was the insistence that you all should have been notified, been given a valid reason for removing the forum, and apparently all been asked to give your blessing to this decision.

The bolded part is completely wrong. It wasn't a thread, they got rid of an entire forum with around 100000 posts in it.

I think you misunderstood. The 20-page thread titled "Flame Wars Removed" that was linked in the 9th post of this thread as suggested reading. That's where all of these comments originated. If you have other threads I should read, please let me know.

This doesn't make sense to me. As was mentioned in the thread, there is probably some monetary impact to the site of having an entire subforum that is full of explicit language, racism, bigotry, and god knows what else kinds of insults.

You should just leave. Your posts are just lies made up by your complete ignorance on the situation. Please look things up before posting them. Racism, bigotry, and some forms of explicit language were completely not allowed in FWs.

You should have read the sentence after that. Of course since flame wars no longer exists, I can't research what type of threads were there. However, I believe I grasp the concept. If racism and bigotry weren't allowed, I will retract that portion of my statement. I highly doubt that explicit language was moderated in flame wars, it's actually pretty rampant in the remaining parts of the forum.

I'm perfectly fine with leaving if the dissenting individuals would rather not engage in these types of discussions, and resort to attacking the admins and mods personally, and telling everyone that doesn't side with them to leave. It sure does seem that way.

I don't know

Quite true.

I see what you did there. Clever.

Like it or not, Lack owns this business, and I'm quite certain he doesn't feel that he should have to relinquish any potential additional revenue if the pro-flame wars guys tell him to. Sure, some of them have likely made large investments of time and efforts into this site. That doesn't make it any less his decision. They were permitted to reap the benefits (better gameplay) of their efforts during their time here.

This seems to be the fight song of all the administrators here. "We had no reason to do that, but we did it anyway because we can".

I don't think it's so much that they have no reason to do it, it's that those affected don't like their reasons, or for whatever reason want to continue to push the envelope and see how far they can take things. That's just my take on it. I just read the Dancing Mustard thread, and that's what I drew from it.

The argument that "this will only increase flames outside of flame wars" misses the point entirely. The flames in flame wars gives the impressions that flames are acceptable on this site. Apparently that is not the intended impression. They don't want flaming on this site at all. So, when the flaming returns outside of flame wars, it is now enforceable with the inevitable bans. The fact that more people are getting banned now is because they couldn't refrain from the flaming that they had become so accustomed to. That seems logical to me.

People got banned from flaming outside of flamewars anyway. Plus you can't say that "the flaming has decreased in these forums", because honestly, i've seen an increase with flames even from people who weren't FW activists.

Your phrase in quotes should not be in quotes, as that is not what I said. I said it makes sense that more people are getting banned now, as the flaming can now only take place in moderated areas of the forum. Not to mention the fact that many more members are all bent out of shape and continually lashing out at the mods and admins in what I would consider to be pushing the limits.

For the complaints about the number of banned members and the escalating ban getting too high, I will defer my comments until I am adequately prepared for a discussion. I don't have enough information to speak intelligently on the topic. I would appreciate any references to threads/posts/anything that would give me a starting point for understanding the severity of the banning epidemic.

This subject would backtrack all the way to January 2008 when norse was banned. But I don't know all the details about what happened during then because I only had 8 posts during that time. Someone else will probably tell you.

Thank you. That was a civil, and informative response. I hope to continue this discussion in the future.

For the record, I'm not a admin/mod multi

You remind me a lot of Twill actually...

I hope that's not an insult to Twill (or to me).

I just like to browse the forum while I'm waiting for turns, and found that too many threads are the same folks with the same contempt for the current "administration".

Well most people come out against the people complaining at first, but sooner or later realize that most of us are right when we say there are major problems with how the ban system works.

And it is entirely possible that that might happen again, but at this juncture I can't say it's likely.

Good discussion.

[72o]

I just received a formal warning for posting a picture of Michelangelo's David. I'd post a link to Wikipedia so you know what I'm talking about, but I can't do that because it includes a picture of the statue. The statue can also be seen with Googles Image search filter set to "Strict". I'm waiting to try it against a sonicwall content filtering firewall and see if it's "bad".

I understand your predicament, but it's pretty clear in the forum rules:

* Any images or textual descriptions of sexual activity or nudity - nipples, areola, genitals, anuses etc - whether intended as artistic, erotic, pornographic or otherwise are not allowed.
* This includes content posted here and links to other sites. Posting NSFW - "Not Suitable For Work" - does not make it ok for posting.
* If it is ambiguous, we'll ask you to remove it anyway, so "It's a guy's nipple" isn't going to fly. You're just trying to be annoying at that point.
* Posting a painting from the 13th century with exposed nipples to claim that we're evil dictators when we ask you to remove it is also just being annoying, and you're probably just being a troll at that point.

Pornography in chat or in the forums will frequently earn an immediate 24-hour vacation, even without a warning first.

So, I don't think it matters whether Google Image search or sonicwall or netnanny or whoever deems it acceptable, it's apparently not here. Heed the warning by reviewing the rules and your content prior to posting in the future.

Yet King_Herpes gets away with posting a full topic on sexual activity:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=94063

So let's all just pretend that upon one glorious day we were presented with the opportunity to engage in vaginal intercourse or penile insertion with another Conquer Club member.

and cowboyz:
viewtopic.php?f=213&t=93732&hilit=penis&start=45#p2153968

I sometimes occasionally suck the penis of strange men. My vote stays with PMC

and GabonX:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=91516&hilit=vagina

We haven't had sex but my hand was on her vagina the first two days I knew her.........................................

Where is the justice?

I certainly won't speak on behalf of the mods on this one, and I can only speculate on what their reasoning might be. Perhaps images are considered more inappropriate than textual references (this would concern me a bit, because it also says textual references are prohibited in the guidelines), or possibly the fact that each of those textual references is only a few days old, maybe they haven't gotten to it yet (although the artwork thread is also very recent). Also, it appears that bedub1's post may have been reported when the others weren't (although the 'reported' post in that thread could have been a joke).

For there to be a basis of comparison for your favoritism allegation, I would want to see explicit images posted by any of your 3 offenders that was allowed, or textual references that had resulted in a wrist-slap for some other member. I like the specific references to evaluate though, thanks for your help.

[stahrgazer]

I just don't get how you can join a community that's been provided to you free of charge by someone else, is the property of someone else, and then you act like it's your god-given right to say how things should be!

You say that this is because they are trying to address the root of the problem. If you mean that the root of the problems are the mods and admins, why don't you just not log in anymore?

Based on your logic, 72o, "Suggestions and Bug Reports" should be abolished; after all, that's people acting like they have a god-given right to say how things should be. If they have a suggestion or a bug, perhaps they should find a new site and not log on anymore, rather than try to address the root of a problem.

As an example where people turned out to be accurate in their occasional complaints about a mod, there was a mod gal called Wicked. It took a while before her tendency to tantrum hit the wrong people in the wrong ways, but when it did, and her powers were taken away, she began a campaign to take the site down, giving away site secrets and stuff. She still does attempt to take the site down, even though she's now banned, from time to time. As I understand it, the last time, she trashed the site for close to a day, and trashed forums for a little longer, causing admin REAL headaches.

Well, I was not one of those who had any problems with Wicked when she was a mod, but I saw a lot of complaints posted about her - some in forums, some in whispers.

Had admin taken some of those early players' complaints about her more seriously, DESPITE she was "just a volunteer trying to do a job," maybe she would've learned less secrets to give away and use to destroy the site.

Sometimes, those who complain, ARE accurate.

[Kotaro]

Don't worry new guy, there's enough people kissing ass in the hopes of getting a mod spot themselves, so they can feel important and do nothing with their time, to counter balance us assholish "truth speakers".

[AndyDufresne]

I agree that sometimes complainers, or perhaps more appropriately termed, concerned community members, are accurate. However, I think trying to make the connection between concerns about Wicked and possibly undercutting the whole situation are thin. Some people, when they are removed from a position, unfortunately just do not take it well---for whatever reason, rightly or wrongly.


--Andy

[stahrgazer]

They don't want flaming on this site at all. So, when the flaming returns outside of flame wars, it is now enforceable with the inevitable bans.

If that were the case, enforcement would be equitable. As it is, they allow in-game flames as long as it's not gay-bashing; and allow in-forum and in-chat flames as long as it's not either from the wrong person or the 'defender' attacks back.

On my prior "wicked" comment, many of these "complaint" posts point out that whoever Wicked banned in her pre-ban tantrums, remain banned, despite now-conclusive evidence that that person was a poor choice for mod, one who wielded her powers in ways that tear down, rather than benefit, the site.

All those who complained and were bashed for complaining about that "poor volunteer just trying to do her job," turned out to be more correct than they were wrong - even if others just didn't want to hear it.

[Fruitcake]

It says something about the mentality of the admin/mods when they feel the need to keep the charade up of hiding behind a created persona.

[stahrgazer]

I agree that sometimes complainers, or perhaps more appropriately termed, concerned community members, are accurate. However, I think trying to make the connection between concerns about Wicked and possibly undercutting the whole situation are thin. Some people, when they are removed from a position, unfortunately just do not take it well---for whatever reason, rightly or wrongly.


--Andy

True, Andy.

But some who "have power" also tend to wield the power inequitably, picking up "favorites" (I've called them 'pets' in other discussions) or arbitrarily choosing to ignore the concerns posted by other "concerned community members" (whom they label "complainer" so refuse to listen.)

The tendency to "ignore something from poster b" combined with a "refusal to ignore lesser offenses from poster c" .. it's a systemic problem.

72o is correct, however, when he mentions, "It's no wonder people are being banned." There are those who go power-crazed, get ugly at power-wielding, when they are questioned.

The typical response to specifics that people can mention are also seen in this thread, in some of 72o's response: "I can't speak to that..."

The point, 72o, is there's a lot of stuff going on that alot of people decide they "can't speak to," and if people didn't have the courage to complain about it, you'd never be aware until it happens to you.

I experienced 9 months of consistent b.s. that mods wouldn't address, and a few even encouraged - in forums, in games, and in chat - choosing to remain publicly silent but privately expressing my concerns to those admins and higher mods I thought might do something about stuff. Their answer, it seems, was to remove 'flame wars' which is like popping a zit to remove a tumor - ineffectual as far as the main concern, even if zits aren't that desired.

The "background complaint" method didn't work. So now I've joined the public complaint group. From a critical thinking standpoint, I might've thought what I experienced was just me experiencing... but darn, there sure are a lot of "I can't speak to that" example threads people show... enough of those "I can't speak to that," threads sure do make this critical thinker believe there's a systemic problem, a problem CC admin may or may not realize is systemic. Enough public complaints and they may see it's systemic.

[AndyDufresne]

Public Complaints do serve a good purpose, as long as they remain constructive, and not destructive. RE: Wicked vs Major/Severe Infractions Guidelines

Volunteering, for Conquer Club at least, is sometimes a difficult job---more often than we'd like it to be. We'd rather see more people part of the solution, either helping out productively in the forums, e-tickets, or by other general means, or more people stepping up to help out in positions where it is needed (hence the recent "Nominations" we ran not to long ago).


--Andy

[72o]

72o is correct, however, when he mentions, "It's no wonder people are being banned." There are those who go power-crazed, get ugly at power-wielding, when they are questioned.

The typical response to specifics that people can mention are also seen in this thread, in some of 72o's response: "I can't speak to that..."

I did say that I can't speak for the mods regarding the specifics of bedub's warning vs. the numerous citations of sex-related threads. I'm not a mod, so I can't speak for them. I can speculate reasons, which I did in my answer.

I guess my thought is, let's investigate each of these incidents that "can't be spoken to" individually, and see if we can't produce sound, logical reasons for our complaints, to take those to the mods in a civil, organized manner. I firmly believe that this would be much better received than interjecting hundreds of threads with (to paraphrase liberally) "the mods are a bunch of power-drunk azzholes who ban anyone who gets in their way".

If these discussions are taking place, please, point me in the right direction.


Fruitcake,

I am not a mod or admin. I am not a multi of a mod or admin. I was not put up to this by a mod or admin. No mod or admin has endorsed this discussion, and none of them will provide me with any favors for doing this. This also seems to be a common response. Someone actually doesn't agree with you, and they're automatically a "created persona" of a mod or admin.


I think some take themselves, and this issue, way too seriously. That is all from me for now. Enjoy your forum the way it is, I'll go back to playing games and enjoying the rest of what this site has to offer.

[Kotaro]

It's truly a wonder why anyone is banned, actually. Most of us, whenever we post, stay inside the rules. However, once people start getting banned for "skirting", aka, "almost" breaking the rules, then the "trolls" come out, and the mods and asskissers get pissy.

Here's a hint; ban someone for breaking the rules, not "almost" breaking them.

[Woodruff]

I just received a formal warning for posting a picture of Michelangelo's David. I'd post a link to Wikipedia so you know what I'm talking about, but I can't do that because it includes a picture of the statue. The statue can also be seen with Googles Image search filter set to "Strict". I'm waiting to try it against a sonicwall content filtering firewall and see if it's "bad".

I understand your predicament, but it's pretty clear in the forum rules:

* Any images or textual descriptions of sexual activity or nudity - nipples, areola, genitals, anuses etc - whether intended as artistic, erotic, pornographic or otherwise are not allowed.
* This includes content posted here and links to other sites. Posting NSFW - "Not Suitable For Work" - does not make it ok for posting.
* If it is ambiguous, we'll ask you to remove it anyway, so "It's a guy's nipple" isn't going to fly. You're just trying to be annoying at that point.
* Posting a painting from the 13th century with exposed nipples to claim that we're evil dictators when we ask you to remove it is also just being annoying, and you're probably just being a troll at that point.

Pornography in chat or in the forums will frequently earn an immediate 24-hour vacation, even without a warning first.

So, I don't think it matters whether Google Image search or sonicwall or netnanny or whoever deems it acceptable, it's apparently not here. Heed the warning by reviewing the rules and your content prior to posting in the future.

Yet King_Herpes gets away with posting a full topic on sexual activity:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=94063

So let's all just pretend that upon one glorious day we were presented with the opportunity to engage in vaginal intercourse or penile insertion with another Conquer Club member.

and cowboyz:
viewtopic.php?f=213&t=93732&hilit=penis&start=45#p2153968

I sometimes occasionally suck the penis of strange men. My vote stays with PMC

and GabonX:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=91516&hilit=vagina

We haven't had sex but my hand was on her vagina the first two days I knew her.........................................

Where is the justice?

Did you report those threads? I ask simply because you're ASSUMING that a moderator ever saw the posts in question. If they haven't seen them, then how could they take action on them?

Now, if we know that they've seen them (i.e., they're involved in the threads), then that is certainly a different issue.