Moderator: Community Team
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
Dancing Mustard wrote:Where was the harm? Well actually there wasn't any... but it was a thread in which a great number of site users were expressing justifiable irritation at the tasteless antics of one of this sites most persistent trolls, and the mod on duty didn't have the power to do what the community wanted.
See... I actually disagree with you there. But given that the thread in which we were able to discuss the matter has now been locked, further discourse is prevented; we'd either be thread-jacking if we talked about it here, or spamming the forum with duplicate threads if we made a new topic... catch-22 moderating at its finest, I think you'll agree?owenshooter wrote:here was nothing offensive about his avatar and it fell well within the guidelines for the site.
Now on that I agree, it was a flagrant "Erm, you are all discussing this robustly, and I don't know what to do... because I can't force a change or ban, um, er, lock thread and sweep issue under carpet!"owenshooter wrote:however, the locking of the thread used a very ridiculous reason that was absurd.
Yeah, it's a shame that the new mentality seems to be "destroy whole thread because one or two people are behaving like wing-wangs". Instead of just warning, deleting, editing and booting people who flame in such discussions, the whole community is made to suffer by way of mod-overkill. It's like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and it's a fine example of crap moderating.owenshooter wrote:the pre-emptive locking of threads before flaming begins is a new sensation flooding the mod world.
Given that Whump's entire troll-shtick is to say/display something offensive/priggish in the most high visibility way possible, then to feign innocence (or further priggishness) when reprimanded... we might well say that those people were just giving Whump what he wanted. It's fairly well documented that he's an attention-whore of the highest order, and that his only contribution to these forums is to make occasional "annoy everybody" threads/gestures. Whump getting piled-on is (1) probably what he wanted, and (2) entirely justifiable behaviour from those doing the piling.owenshooter wrote:everyone was just looking to pile on a usual target
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
clapper011 wrote:lol i was not going to move it to flamewars so you all could attack whump, and that thread was, even if they creep isn't a ccer, about personal information about the guy. As for "panic locking" I did no such thing.
1)general discussion is not for that sort of thread
2)use of personal information for the sole purppose of flaming is not allowed
KraphtOne wrote:when you sign up a new account one of the check boxes should be "do you want to foe colton24 (it is highly recommended) "
Skittles! wrote:clapper011 wrote:lol i was not going to move it to flamewars so you all could attack whump, and that thread was, even if they creep isn't a ccer, about personal information about the guy. As for "panic locking" I did no such thing.
1)general discussion is not for that sort of thread
2)use of personal information for the sole purpose of flaming is not allowed
But, as others pointed out, anyone could get that information anyway. Why is it so amazing of personal information about that person? It's knowledge over the internet.
clapper011 wrote:Skittles! wrote:clapper011 wrote:lol i was not going to move it to flamewars so you all could attack whump, and that thread was, even if they creep isn't a ccer, about personal information about the guy. As for "panic locking" I did no such thing.
1)general discussion is not for that sort of thread
2)use of personal information for the sole purpose of flaming is not allowed
But, as others pointed out, anyone could get that information anyway. Why is it so amazing of personal information about that person? It's knowledge over the internet.
the information was only being used to "flame him" and or whump. theres more then enough threads on wrestlerwhump1 in flame wars. no need for another.
clapper011 wrote:lol i was not going to move it to flamewars so you all could attack whump, and that thread was, even if they creep isn't a ccer, about personal information about the guy. As for "panic locking" I did no such thing.
1)general discussion is not for that sort of thread
2)use of personal information for the sole purppose of flaming is not allowed
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
jbrettlip wrote:Please lock all threads regarding Barrack Obama, John Mccain, Barry Bonds, Britney Spears and other all other people, living and dead. This gross abuse of personal information makes me ill. WHat has happened to CC???
clapper011 wrote:lol i was not going to move it to flamewars so you all could attack whump, and that thread was, even if they creep isn't a ccer, about personal information about the guy. As for "panic locking" I did no such thing.
1)general discussion is not for that sort of thread
2)use of personal information for the sole purppose of flaming is not allowed
Personal information is defined in Section 2 of ATIPPA. It reads:
"personal information" means recorded information about an identifiable individual, includingLink
- the individual's name, address or telephone number,
- the individual's race, national or ethnic origin, colour, or religious or political beliefs or associations,
- the individual's age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status or family status,
- an identifying number, symbol or other particular assigned to the individual,
- the individual's fingerprints, blood type or inheritable characteristics,
- information about the individual's health care status or history, including a physical or mental disability,
- information about the individual's educational, financial, criminal or employment status or history,
- the opinions of a person about the individual, and
- the individual's personal views or opinions
In most states, you can be sued for publishing private facts about another person, even if those facts are true. The term "private facts" refers to information about someone's personal life that has not previously been revealed to the public, that is not of legitimate public concern, and the publication of which would be offensive to a reasonable person. For example, writing about a person's HIV status, sexual orientation, or financial troubles could lead to liability for publication of private facts. However, the law protects you when you publish information that is newsworthy, regardless of whether someone else would like you to keep that information private. In addition, the law protects you if you publish information already exposed to the public eye and especially material obtained from publicly available court records.
The Guidelines on Posting Personal Information wrote:
clapper011 wrote:alright, lets all get one thing straight. I do not nor have I ever claimed to *not or never* make mistakes. And you saying so is just wrong as we are all human and make mistakes daily! Sorry if you guys think that I am such a "terrible" mod..LOL but I don't take the internet as serious as you guys do. I am only here to try to make a small difference, not hate or attack others as most of you enjoy doing. If I make a mistake with locking a thread or such, just balls up and pm me about it. "show me the errors of my ways" instead of finding another way to take cracks at myself and at cc.
Snorri1234 wrote:clapper011 wrote:alright, lets all get one thing straight. I do not nor have I ever claimed to *not or never* make mistakes. And you saying so is just wrong as we are all human and make mistakes daily! Sorry if you guys think that I am such a "terrible" mod..LOL but I don't take the internet as serious as you guys do. I am only here to try to make a small difference, not hate or attack others as most of you enjoy doing. If I make a mistake with locking a thread or such, just balls up and pm me about it. "show me the errors of my ways" instead of finding another way to take cracks at myself and at cc.
But that would mean we wouldn't be able to publicly complain in the forums and thus defeats the very purpose of our existence.
Snorri1234 wrote:clapper011 wrote:alright, lets all get one thing straight. I do not nor have I ever claimed to *not or never* make mistakes. And you saying so is just wrong as we are all human and make mistakes daily! Sorry if you guys think that I am such a "terrible" mod..LOL but I don't take the internet as serious as you guys do. I am only here to try to make a small difference, not hate or attack others as most of you enjoy doing. If I make a mistake with locking a thread or such, just balls up and pm me about it. "show me the errors of my ways" instead of finding another way to take cracks at myself and at cc.
But that would mean we wouldn't be able to publicly complain in the forums and thus defeats the very purpose of our existence.
clapper011 wrote:alright, lets all get one thing straight. I do not nor have I ever claimed to *not or never* make mistakes. And you saying so is just wrong as we are all human and make mistakes daily! Sorry if you guys think that I am such a "terrible" mod..LOL but I don't take the internet as serious as you guys do. I am only here to try to make a small difference, not hate or attack others as most of you enjoy doing. If I make a mistake with locking a thread or such, just balls up and pm me about it. "show me the errors of my ways" instead of finding another way to take cracks at myself and at cc.
clapper011 wrote:I don't take the internet as serious as you guys do.
hecter wrote:clapper011 wrote:I don't take the internet as serious as you guys do.
It shows that you don't take this job of yours seriously. Really, it does. If you cared you'd be doing a half decent job.
clapper011 wrote:never did I actually say i didnt take moding seriously. I said i didn't take the internet as serious.
2.1 DEFINITIONS - In this By-law the following terms, unless a contrary meaning is
required by the context, or it specifically prescribed, shall have the following meaning.
Words used in the present tense include the future, and the plural includes the singular; the
word "lot" includes the word "plot"; the word "building" includes the word "structure"; the
word "shall" is intended to be mandatory; "occupied" or "used" shall be considered as
though followed by the words "or intended, arranged or designed to be used or occupied".
The word "person" includes a corporation or partnership as well as an individual.
If you don't like it, stay the f*ck out
Return to Conquer Club Discussion
Users browsing this forum: CoolC, JPcelticfc