Conquer Club

Dear Moderators

Talk about all things related to Conquer Club

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the community guidelines before posting.

Re: Dear Moderators

Postby clapper011 on Wed Jul 01, 2009 9:16 am

Skittles! wrote:
clapper011 wrote:I replied to all of your pms skittles. Just because I don't give you the answers you want to hear does not make me a "shit" mod. That is just your personal opinion. Oh and back on topic.. this thread is not about me skittles, it is about whoever it was that locked Dm's thread.

Please don't lie.

As for DM's thread being locked, it was completely irrational and stupid. And why isn't he just getting a clear answer of who locked it in the first place? The "family friendly" (seriously, how many -10 year olds do you think you have here?) approach the admin and mods (I believe they should be called "Badge Wearers: They're better than you" from now on) are going towards will eventually make many, many forum users leave. And I'm sure many of the moderators won't like that, because then they can't wear their beloved badge.

lies? LOL there was never a "pm" from you about how "shitty" my modding is..was ...w/e... because I would have made note of it for future reference when having to deal with issues that might arise in the future. Are you becoming infatuated with me skittles? As for owen, a record is still a record, it is logged and any and all offenses are on your record..
The Community Guidelines wrote:

Rule Enforcement

For users who break the above Guidelines, as they say, "there will be consequences and repercussions." The Mods and Admins will always take into account when past offenses occurred, and the severity of the current offense and any past offenses, in addition to the intent of the offense.



* First Infraction = Friendly Warning/Official Paddle Warning
* Second Infraction = 24 Hour Vacation
* Third Infraction = 72 Hour Vacation
* Fourth Infraction = 1 Week/1 Month Vacation
* Fifth Infraction = Permanent Forum Vacation
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class clapper011
 
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:25 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Dear Moderators

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Jul 01, 2009 9:19 am

King_Herpes wrote:Dear Mr. Infallible,

The rhetorically sarcastic pitch of the question at hand is almost as inane as the kittenish mood you were in as you pressed submit. Clever as it may be you can't lead anyone to believe that you don't understand why you got your slap on the snout. You certainly would have been better off playing with a ball of yarn or lapping up some fresh milk. Run along now, you've got 1/9 lives left.


It's too bad Flame Wars is gone. I would truly have loved to see a battle between the King and the Mustard.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Dear Moderators

Postby owenshooter on Wed Jul 01, 2009 9:29 am

clapper011 wrote: * First Infraction = Friendly Warning/Official Paddle Warning
* Second Infraction = 24 Hour Vacation
* Third Infraction = 72 Hour Vacation
* Fourth Infraction = 1 Week/1 Month Vacation
* Fifth Infraction = Permanent Forum Vacation

is this new? i can name a few members of hand that were given multiple month and 6 month long forum vacations, well before a permanent forum vacation. and what does this have to do with the absurd locking of a very funny thread that obviously went over the mods head that locked it, and the subsequent threat to DM of a perma-ban within this thread?

also, it is very funny to watch all the action to try and bring life to other areas of the forum that aren't as lively as the GD and off topics, etc... the over moderation within those areas of the forum are why many members do not visit them. and it seems as if the "flavor" and "tone" set within forums like the GD and Off Topics by the members, is the very thing that the admins/mods are trying to clean up and drive out of the areas of the forum that ARE trafficked!! if you want to see how that is, go over to a certain speed sudoku site that is populated by mod wanna-be's and CC suck ups, trying to make the forums as lively and entertaining and fun as the forums heavily trafficked here are. it ain't happening. you can't create what this CC community is, overnight.

when you lock a thread and threaten a member with a perma-ban for not violating any clear rule, other than the atypical mod excuse "unwritten rules" or the other lame ones stated within this thread, you are part of the problem. anyone that truly read DM's thread was not offended by it, as it was cleverly written and skirted the rules so far within the pale that it was masterful. it is not his fault that he is far too clever for many of those in charge on this site, show me where that is against the rules...-0
Image
Thorthoth,"Cloaking one's C&A fetish with moral authority and righteous indignation
makes it ever so much more erotically thrilling"
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class owenshooter
 
Posts: 13244
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:01 pm
Location: Deep in the Heart of Tx

Re: Dear Moderators

Postby jpcloet on Wed Jul 01, 2009 9:35 am

Face it Owen, the thread post was inappropriate and I would easily class it under the "Intentionally Annoying". While you may think you are being clever, only a few see it that way. If that thread was in callouts, it would have been locked immediately, and I would have asked DM to reword his post in an appropriate way. Standing up for a clan mate is honorable, but I'm not sure why you think this fight is worth fighting over. Leave it alone and move on.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class jpcloet
 
Posts: 4317
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:18 am
Location: Greater Toronto Area

Re: Dear Moderators

Postby clapper011 on Wed Jul 01, 2009 9:37 am

this is all part of the new direction we are heading in with the newly appointed head moderator (andy) and with OP's new positions. So that there are not so much "unwritten" rules, making the guidelines much easier to follow. And the part about the reason for the lock...well you will have to ask the moderator who locked it..but it does not take a genius to realize that, that particular thread would have only lead to an over abundance of flaming and personal attacks. But what do I know ........
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class clapper011
 
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:25 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Dear Moderators

Postby jpcloet on Wed Jul 01, 2009 9:37 am

Dang, fast-posted by the sweetness.

owenshooter wrote:is this new? i can name a few members of hand that were given multiple month and 6 month long forum vacations, well before a permanent forum vacation.


I'm glad you noticed the change. The users of CC asked for a more consistent moderation, and by following protocol, we have become much more consistent in adhering to the protocol as a group of moderators.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class jpcloet
 
Posts: 4317
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:18 am
Location: Greater Toronto Area

Re: Dear Moderators

Postby Neoteny on Wed Jul 01, 2009 9:46 am

jpcloet wrote:Face it Owen, the thread post was inappropriate and I would easily class it under the "Intentionally Annoying". While you may think you are being clever, only a few see it that way. If that thread was in callouts, it would have been locked immediately, and I would have asked DM to reword his post in an appropriate way. Standing up for a clan mate is honorable, but I'm not sure why you think this fight is worth fighting over. Leave it alone and move on.


And what little clout jp garnered goes down the toilet.

That's not even what you said the first time.

Intentional annoyance is hardly the goal of that thread, and even if it were, you may as well lock all the threads in Turtle Poop. Again, the only valid complaint I'm seeing is that it was a callout in the wrong forum, with an attitude that some might find inappropriate for the Callouts forum. However, the tone was entirely appropriate for the forum in which it was posted. I can understand locking it because it was inappropriate for the forum to which it should have been moved. That would have been an acceptable response, and the explanation would have been simple and satisfactory. But we keep being given these ridiculous responses about how it broke all these varying rules (that the mods can't even keep straight; according to you guys, how many rules has DM broken with that thread? 1? 4? 7?).

Seriously? Where's the consistency? And has anyone fessed up to locking the thread?
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
User avatar
Major Neoteny
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: Dear Moderators

Postby jpcloet on Wed Jul 01, 2009 10:01 am

the only valid complaint I'm seeing is that it was a callout in the wrong forum


This has been corrected. You are right, this should be in callouts.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class jpcloet
 
Posts: 4317
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:18 am
Location: Greater Toronto Area

Re: Dear Moderators

Postby Neoteny on Wed Jul 01, 2009 10:06 am

A valid move and a claim of responsibility. A vast improvement.

I'm still questioning the reasoning for the lock, but I suppose beggars can't be choosers.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
User avatar
Major Neoteny
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: Dear Moderators

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Jul 01, 2009 10:09 am

Neoteny wrote:A valid move and a claim of responsibility. A vast improvement.

I'm still questioning the reasoning for the lock, but I suppose beggars can't be choosers.


It's pretty clever how they've now dealt with the issue and the rules have been explained.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Dear Moderators

Postby Dancing Mustard on Wed Jul 01, 2009 10:15 am

jpcloet wrote:Face it Owen, the thread post was inappropriate and I would easily class it under the "Intentionally Annoying".

Yeah... in the same way that you could technically class it under the "No Multiple Accounts" offence. Y'know, you could say it, but you'd clearly be in error.

Anyway, now that you've completely departed from your original reasoning and have decided that my thread apparently breaks a very different rule from the ones you originally alleged... perhaps you would be so kind as to explain to us all how that thread was in any way 'intentionally annoying'. It would also be helpful if you could identify precisely who it is that you think would be annoyed by that friendly invitation to join a game.

After all, you've had plenty of time to think of a tenable reason now... surely you'll have no problems coherently substantiating it, right?


jpcloet wrote:While you may think you are being clever, only a few see it that way.

It's not so much that we think that we're being clever, it's that we think that you're being irrational and juvenile.

jpcloet wrote:If that thread was in callouts, it would have been locked immediately, and I would have asked DM to reword his post in an appropriate way.

Oh yeah?

What guidelines would it have broken there exactly? Or would have locked it because of the unwritten rule that "all callouts must be worded in a homogeneous and unimaginative fashion"?


jpcloet wrote:Standing up for a clan mate is honorable

...but pointing out a carnival of poor moderating behaviour is even more so.

jpcloet wrote:I'm not sure why you think this fight is worth fighting over.

Because it's yet another fantastic demonstration of a specific category of moderating errors that are endemic to CC.

This is a set of simple errors that you guys keep on making. We'd like you to stop being so inconsistent, to stop applying double standards, and to learn to better respond to legitimate questioning of your errors. That's why we think this incident is worth bickering over: because it's a microcosm of a larger issue.

Of coures, your faux-reasonable "oh come on, let's all drop it" line is really just another great example of the whole "gloss over the issue and attempt to sweep it under the carpet tactic" with which CC's moderators repeatedly attempt to deflect legitimate complaints rather than dealing with their root causes.

Which is of course just one of the counter-productive moderator-practices that this thread is complaining about.

clapper011 wrote:there are not so much "unwritten" rules, making the guidelines much easier to follow.

Oh really?

Then why are we currently posting in which a thread complaining that another thread has been locked when it did not break a written rule? If there really aren't so many 'unwritten rules' around here any more, then why the hell are you still locking threads for breaking them?

clapper011 wrote:about the reason for the lock...well you will have to ask the moderator who locked it

That'd be so much easier if they'd (1) signed the thread when they locked it, making themselves accountable, or (2) subsequently owned up to being the lock originator. Don't you think?

clapper011 wrote:it does not take a genius to realize that, that particular thread would have only lead to an over abundance of flaming and personal attacks

Really?

Because so far as I can tell, it didn't contain a single one of those things at the time that it was locked, and seemed to be heading in a totally benign direction.

Seriously, if we accept "Might well lead to an abundance of flames" as a criteria for locking threads, then you'd have to lock every single religious topic and/or conspiracy-theory thread that ever got posted on this site, as well as shutting down half of the C&A sub-forum.

Also, since when was "Might lead to flames in the future" an explicitly stated "no-no" laid out in the guidelines? Sounds like yet another of these niggling little 'unwritten clauses' to me...
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.
User avatar
Corporal Dancing Mustard
 
Posts: 5442
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:31 pm
Location: Pushing Buttons

Re: Dear Moderators

Postby Dancing Mustard on Wed Jul 01, 2009 10:28 am

Aha! Consistency in action...

Behold: viewtopic.php?f=31&p=2093546#p2093546

Check it out people: Mysterious mod locks thread for no apparent reason. Callouts Mod gives set of reasons why he thinks it should be locked. His reasons are demonstrated to be untenable. Global Mod unlocks thread and moves it. Callouts Mod immediately locks it again, quoting his set of reasons that have already been proven untenable.

If anybody here can tell me how that chain of actions doesn't completely torpedo the idea that my thread was locked for a clearly expressed and explicitly written rule... then I'd be delighted to hear it.

I mean, take a look at it all, it seems like we've got so many unwritten rules going on here, that even the mods can't agree on what they say!
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.
User avatar
Corporal Dancing Mustard
 
Posts: 5442
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:31 pm
Location: Pushing Buttons

Re: Dear Moderators

Postby jpcloet on Wed Jul 01, 2009 10:32 am

Dancing Mustard wrote:Anyway, now that you've completely departed from your original reasoning and have decided that my thread apparently breaks a very different rule from the ones you originally alleged


Not quite, was just adding to the argument. You will notice that the thread was locked with the original argument.

Dancing Mustard wrote:It's not so much that we think that we're being clever, it's that we think that you're being irrational and juvenile.


Well you are entitled to your opinion clearly.

Dancing Mustard wrote:
jpcloet wrote:If that thread was in callouts, it would have been locked immediately, and I would have asked DM to reword his post in an appropriate way.

Oh yeah?
Yes.

Dancing Mustard wrote:
clapper011 wrote:about the reason for the lock...well you will have to ask the moderator who locked it

That'd be so much easier if they'd (1) signed the thread when they locked it, making themselves accountable, or (2) subsequently owned up to being the lock originator. Don't you think?


Protocol is to post the reason for the lock. This was a miss and has been corrected.

Dancing Mustard wrote:Also, since when was "Might lead to flames in the future" an explicitly stated "no-no" laid out in the guidelines? Sounds like yet another of these niggling little 'unwritten clauses' to me...


Flames or the promotion of flames is not allowed. The threads you mentioned above are discussion threads. All threads could lead to flames.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class jpcloet
 
Posts: 4317
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:18 am
Location: Greater Toronto Area

Re: Dear Moderators

Postby Dancing Mustard on Wed Jul 01, 2009 10:39 am

jpcloet wrote:Not quite, was just adding to the argument. You will notice that the thread was locked with the original argument.

Yes... with the argument that was comprehensively demonstrated to be spurious and untenable earlier in this thread.

That is precisely what the problem here is: That even though the mods are making a lot of noise, they can't actually seem to come up with a proper reason why that thread should be locked.

Your problem seems to be confusing the concepts of "any old reason Jpcloet feels like" with a "genuine reason for a lock".

It has been pointed out that your given reasons make ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE when viewed alongside the written guidelines. Why are we all just supposed to accept arbitrary locks that rely on 'unwritten guidelines'?

jpcloet wrote:
Dancing Mustard wrote:
jpcloet wrote:If that thread was in callouts, it would have been locked immediately, and I would have asked DM to reword his post in an appropriate way.

Oh yeah?
Yes.

I note that you didn't dare to engage with the actual question that was asked of your quoted statement.

Care to do it this time? Or will you perform another flagrant deflection?

What guidelines would it have broken there exactly? Or would have locked it because of the unwritten rule that "all callouts must be worded in a homogeneous and unimaginative fashion"?

jpcloet wrote:Protocol is to post the reason for the lock. This was a miss and has been corrected.

No it hasn't.

We know why you locked the thread a second time (after a more senior mod unlocked it again), but there's still been ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION of who originally locked it.

The miss remains 100% uncorrected.

jpcloet wrote:Flames or the promotion of flames is not allowed.

So, given that my thread contained neither... why was it locked?

I mean, platitudinous regurgitations of inapplicable rules is all very well as a stalling tactic... but it really doesn't answer the question that you keep getting asked here.
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.
User avatar
Corporal Dancing Mustard
 
Posts: 5442
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:31 pm
Location: Pushing Buttons

Re: Dear Moderators

Postby jpcloet on Wed Jul 01, 2009 10:46 am

The thread was locked with 3 reasons, whether you don't understand them or don't like them does not make them invalid.

The original lock was done by Andy. If you wish to further complain about the reason for my lock, please PM Andy. If you wish to complain about my moderation, feel free to pm Optimus Prime.

Whether you are satisfied or not, all of you questions have been answered.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class jpcloet
 
Posts: 4317
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:18 am
Location: Greater Toronto Area

Re: Dear Moderators

Postby jpcloet on Wed Jul 01, 2009 10:49 am

Good debate, I smell a need for some new protocols around how to question a mod's actions.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class jpcloet
 
Posts: 4317
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:18 am
Location: Greater Toronto Area

Re: Dear Moderators

Postby Neoteny on Wed Jul 01, 2009 10:58 am

jpcloet wrote:Good debate, I smell a need for some new protocols around how to question a mod's actions.


f*ck that. Public discussion is the most appropriate means to confront flaws from a person in control. Not only does it help clarify issues for everyone, but public illumination for those at fault is a powerful tool (be it the user or the admin or mod) to encourage a positive change.

I will not hide my disdain in the shadows.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
User avatar
Major Neoteny
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: Dear Moderators

Postby Mr Changsha on Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:08 am

jpcloet wrote:Good debate, I smell a need for some new protocols around how to question a mod's actions.


Well DM was good, but you came across as shifty and defensive.
Image
User avatar
Colonel Mr Changsha
 
Posts: 1662
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:42 am

Re: Dear Moderators

Postby hecter on Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:09 am

jpcloet wrote:The thread was locked with 3 reasons, whether you don't understand them or don't like them does not make them invalid.

The original lock was done by Andy. If you wish to further complain about the reason for my lock, please PM Andy. If you wish to complain about my moderation, feel free to pm Optimus Prime.

Whether you are satisfied or not, all of you questions have been answered.

Which have subsequently been responded to, and which you blatantly ignored. Do you not understand how this works? It's a really back and forth kinda thing here. It's called an argument, a debate. You're doing it wrong. And why do we have to PM Andy? YOU just locked it!
In heaven... Everything is fine, in heaven... Everything is fine, in heaven... Everything is fine... You got your things, and I've got mine.
Image
User avatar
Private 1st Class hecter
 
Posts: 14632
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:27 pm
Location: Tying somebody up on the third floor

Re: Dear Moderators

Postby jpcloet on Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:11 am

Mr Changsha wrote:
jpcloet wrote:Good debate, I smell a need for some new protocols around how to question a mod's actions.


Well DM was good, but you came across as shifty and defensive.


His vocabulary is quite impressive.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class jpcloet
 
Posts: 4317
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:18 am
Location: Greater Toronto Area

Re: Dear Moderators

Postby targetman377 on Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:12 am

jpcloet wrote:The thread was locked with 3 reasons, whether you don't understand them or don't like them does not make them invalid.

The original lock was done by Andy. If you wish to further complain about the reason for my lock, please PM Andy. If you wish to complain about my moderation, feel free to pm Optimus Prime.

Whether you are satisfied or not, all of you questions have been answered.

jpcloet wrote:Good debate, I smell a need for some new protocols around how to question a mod's actions.


good job moderators i like what you have been doing you guys keep up the good work you are doing i know you do not here that enogh so good work =D> =D> =D>
VOTE AUTO/TARGET in 12
User avatar
Sergeant targetman377
 
Posts: 2223
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:52 pm

Re: Dear Moderators

Postby jpcloet on Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:14 am

hecter wrote:Do you not understand how this works? It's a really back and forth kinda thing here. It's called an argument, a debate. You're doing it wrong. And why do we have to PM Andy? YOU just locked it!


It is back and forth, however, this conversation has ended on my part. Andy is responsible for the forums and Optimus is responsible for the mods. I'm suggesting that if you feel this topic is needed to be escalated, then do so to the appropriate admin. (Deflection tactic 8-) )
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class jpcloet
 
Posts: 4317
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:18 am
Location: Greater Toronto Area

Re: Dear Moderators

Postby SultanOfSurreal on Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:15 am

every single person in this thread is a ridiculous baby
User avatar
Private SultanOfSurreal
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 3:53 am

Re: Dear Moderators

Postby hecter on Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:18 am

jpcloet wrote:
hecter wrote:Do you not understand how this works? It's a really back and forth kinda thing here. It's called an argument, a debate. You're doing it wrong. And why do we have to PM Andy? YOU just locked it!


It is back and forth, however, this conversation has ended on my part. Andy is responsible for the forums and Optimus is responsible for the mods. I'm suggesting that if you feel this topic is needed to be escalated, then do so to the appropriate admin. (Deflection tactic 8-) )

You even pride yourself in your use of it... Geez... It's a shame both Andy and OP have the same mindset as you.
In heaven... Everything is fine, in heaven... Everything is fine, in heaven... Everything is fine... You got your things, and I've got mine.
Image
User avatar
Private 1st Class hecter
 
Posts: 14632
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:27 pm
Location: Tying somebody up on the third floor

Re: Dear Moderators

Postby targetman377 on Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:22 am

hecter wrote:
jpcloet wrote:
hecter wrote:Do you not understand how this works? It's a really back and forth kinda thing here. It's called an argument, a debate. You're doing it wrong. And why do we have to PM Andy? YOU just locked it!


It is back and forth, however, this conversation has ended on my part. Andy is responsible for the forums and Optimus is responsible for the mods. I'm suggesting that if you feel this topic is needed to be escalated, then do so to the appropriate admin. (Deflection tactic 8-) )

You even pride yourself in your use of it... Geez... It's a shame both Andy and OP have the same mindset as you.



hector relaxe what he is saying is true. he did not lock it andy did so stop saying he is a bad mod
VOTE AUTO/TARGET in 12
User avatar
Sergeant targetman377
 
Posts: 2223
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:52 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Conquer Club Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users