abusing moderator priveleges!

[TeeGee]

That's against lackattack's ruling and wicked, who is merely a mod, cannot overrule her master's voice.

But from here http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7785

A warning from any mod is the same as a warning from Lackattack himself, asking mommy because daddy said no wont work here. If you chose to disobey a direct request from a mod, expect to be put on a 24 hour freeze from the forum. Further action against the warning will result in longer time-outs, and eventually permanant banning (banding as some would say) from the forum. A mod will always warn you of the consequences if there will be any.

[Rexxx]

Rexx quit trolling with that please. He was warned not to use Nazi here b/c he was flaming and a poll about whether I'm a nazi or not is not appropriate for an actual abuse report (although this is more of a rant). He was not banned for using that word.

Then don't ban him but move his thread to the Flame Wars forum. Just as you did with mine -- and I did not describe anyone as Nazi but was described as such. When I complained about this admins and mods refused to take any actions. Don't apply different standards, dudette!

[Rexxx]

That's against lackattack's ruling and wicked, who is merely a mod, cannot overrule her master's voice.

But from here http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7785

A warning from any mod is the same as a warning from Lackattack himself, asking mommy because daddy said no wont work here. If you chose to disobey a direct request from a mod, expect to be put on a 24 hour freeze from the forum. Further action against the warning will result in longer time-outs, and eventually permanant banning (banding as some would say) from the forum. A mod will always warn you of the consequences if there will be any.

But they also say they have a harassment policy

• "in cases of extreme harassment we may take disciplinary action against the offending member"

If this would be true, i.e. if admins/mods would say what they do (= rules) and do what they say (= being consequent) we would not have had threads like this: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 29#1256012

[TeeGee]

But they also say they have a harassment policy

• "in cases of extreme harassment we may take disciplinary action against the offending member"

If this would be true, i.e. if admins/mods would say what they do (= rules) and do what they say (= being consequent) we would not have had threads like this: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 29#1256012

Point taken.

Maybe what I suggested here http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... =4&t=49060 should be extended to cover all of the site and not just the cheating and abuse forum.

[albertq]

But they also say they have a harassment policy

• "in cases of extreme harassment we may take disciplinary action against the offending member"

If this would be true, i.e. if admins/mods would say what they do (= rules) and do what they say (= being consequent) we would not have had threads like this: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 29#1256012

Point taken.

Maybe what I suggested here http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... =4&t=49060 should be extended to cover all of the site and not just the cheating and abuse forum.

Rexxx's post looks like a good idea. a lot of mod decisions seem to be based on their personal opinion of the person they are punishing rather than the actual crime, so a list like that would help in lots of cases (particularly blatent abuse cases like mine). if you make it so that the mods have to do either one thing or the other then it would stop them using their power for anything other than punishing genuine offender.

[GabonX]

But they also say they have a harassment policy

• "in cases of extreme harassment we may take disciplinary action against the offending member"

If this would be true, i.e. if admins/mods would say what they do (= rules) and do what they say (= being consequent) we would not have had threads like this: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 29#1256012

Point taken.

Maybe what I suggested here http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... =4&t=49060 should be extended to cover all of the site and not just the cheating and abuse forum.

Rexxx's post looks like a good idea. a lot of mod decisions seem to be based on their personal opinion of the person they are punishing rather than the actual crime, so a list like that would help in lots of cases (particularly blatent abuse cases like mine). if you make it so that the mods have to do either one thing or the other then it would stop them using their power for anything other than punishing genuine offender.

Agreed.

Some of the mods definately handle member issues based on the member and not the issue. I think this is wrong.

[kenneth dowding]

the mods should not take their power to harshly or unfairly i was there on the day wicked banned my freind albert which i saw as a insult albert was correct in what he did

[Herakilla]

the mods should not take their power to harshly or unfairly i was there on the day wicked banned my freind albert which i saw as a insult albert was correct in what he did

lol youre the one who saw that u guys talked more than the guy you wanted to stop talking and said sorry....

[wicked]

albert didn't get banned for his conversation with the other guy (forget his name, but the one who was provoking others and did get a warning, the first step on the punishment ladder since he had no prior infractions and was new to chat). It's when I asked for the conversation to stop THREE times and everyone else shut up and albert was still posting "so amber where you from?" in Callouts after THREE requests in about 5 minutes to stop the convo in Callouts. THAT is what earned him a kick. When I checked his chat kick history, he'd been warned in chat, PM-warned, and been on a 24hr ban for previous infractions; so he was put on another ban for disrupting chat yet again. This has all been explained to albert via PM.

The reason the kick had "no reason" as a reason is that the reason is spelled out quite clearly in the PMs the offender is sent. We don't always list a reason when kicking someone if we know they know the reason and/or know we're going to explain it to them fully via PM where it's easier to have a 1 on 1 conversation. Time is usually of the essence when people are misbehaving in chat, so typing long drawn out reasons is usually counterproductive to enacting the actual ban. But rest assured, if you are banned from chat, you will know exactly the reason, as albert was clearly told, as it's spelled out in the PM you receive.

[albertq]

albert didn't get banned for his conversation with the other guy (forget his name, but the one who was provoking others and did get a warning, the first step on the punishment ladder since he had no prior infractions and was new to chat). It's when I asked for the conversation to stop THREE times and everyone else shut up and albert was still posting "so amber where you from?" in Callouts after THREE requests in about 5 minutes to stop the convo in Callouts. THAT is what earned him a kick. When I checked his chat kick history, he'd been warned in chat, PM-warned, and been on a 24hr ban for previous infractions; so he was put on another ban for disrupting chat yet again. This has all been explained to albert via PM.

The reason the kick had "no reason" as a reason is that the reason is spelled out quite clearly in the PMs the offender is sent. We don't always list a reason when kicking someone if we know they know the reason and/or know we're going to explain it to them fully via PM where it's easier to have a 1 on 1 conversation. Time is usually of the essence when people are misbehaving in chat, so typing long drawn out reasons is usually counterproductive to enacting the actual ban. But rest assured, if you are banned from chat, you will know exactly the reason, as albert was clearly told, as it's spelled out in the PM you receive.

nope, you just said 'i'm banning you'

[wicked]

albert, you received the official PM about your ban plus two PMs from me. Between all of that, is was clearly explained to you what happened. I don't have the paddle verbage handy and can't access it from work, but here are the PMs:

I didn't see what he posted since I wasn't there at the time. I saw everyone chatting and came in and asked multiple times for everyone to stop. You purposely kept chatting in Callouts after my requests to stop. Everyone else stopped but you. Learn to listen to requests and you won't be banned.

this was his first offense as he's new, so yes he gets an official warning. you've gotten in trouble many times, so you're on a ban.

I understand you want to whine about this because it involves you, so of course you think it's unfair. But everything was done "by the book". Everytime you act up in chat, ignore mod requests, type racist comments, etc... you will earn an escalating ban. And if it continues, you'll permanently lose the privilege to use Chat.

Chat has a "punishment ladder" just like the forums: Warnings, Kicks, Bans (from 24 hours on up), Permaband.

[muy_thaiguy]

albert didn't get banned for his conversation with the other guy (forget his name, but the one who was provoking others and did get a warning, the first step on the punishment ladder since he had no prior infractions and was new to chat). It's when I asked for the conversation to stop THREE times and everyone else shut up and albert was still posting "so amber where you from?" in Callouts after THREE requests in about 5 minutes to stop the convo in Callouts. THAT is what earned him a kick. When I checked his chat kick history, he'd been warned in chat, PM-warned, and been on a 24hr ban for previous infractions; so he was put on another ban for disrupting chat yet again. This has all been explained to albert via PM.

The reason the kick had "no reason" as a reason is that the reason is spelled out quite clearly in the PMs the offender is sent. We don't always list a reason when kicking someone if we know they know the reason and/or know we're going to explain it to them fully via PM where it's easier to have a 1 on 1 conversation. Time is usually of the essence when people are misbehaving in chat, so typing long drawn out reasons is usually counterproductive to enacting the actual ban. But rest assured, if you are banned from chat, you will know exactly the reason, as albert was clearly told, as it's spelled out in the PM you receive.

nope, you just said 'i'm banning you'

Hint of advice stop while you're- wait, you were never ahead to begin with, so just stop, otherwise, you'll just keep digging yourself deeper.

[wicked]

I just realized it might not be common knowledge that when a mod kicks someone from chat, if a reason it not typed out along with the kick command, it'll show up as "no reason" by default. This does NOT mean the person is being kicked out for no reason, it just means the mod was trying to be quick about stopping the person and didn't take the time to write out a reason. But as I've already stated, the reason WILL be spelled out via PM, either official or otherwise. Half the people don't even see the reason anyway when it appears at the kick, another reason why we don't always bother to type it out, but do follow up either via PM or when they come back in chat.

[reminisco]

Thread. Of. The. Year.



ps. albertq, a little discretion goes a long way. just learn that and move on.

[GabonX]

Well if what you are saying is accurate then it sounds like Albert is in the wrong here. I still don't think it's right to handle user situations based off of preference for the user, which I have heard you say that you do...

I have had a couple of E Tickets submitted several weeks ago. Should I assume that we are at a point where you won't listen to me? Granted we don't have to dicuss this here but I have already PMed you and you don't answer.

[clapper011]

Well if what you are saying is accurate then it sounds like Albert is in the wrong here. I still don't think it's right to handle user situations based off of preference for the user, which I have heard you say that you do...

I have had a couple of E Tickets submitted several weeks ago. Should I assume that we are at a point where you won't listen to me? Granted we don't have to dicuss this here but I have already PMed you and you don't answer.

depending on what the eticket was about, it may not be wicked's department, so therefore has nothing to do with wicked. Yet most assume that everything is wicked's responsibility.. there are a few mods, not just wicked.

[BeakerWMA]

why is this thread still running? Just curious, seems like just another slur job against wicked.

[albertq]

Well if what you are saying is accurate then it sounds like Albert is in the wrong here. I still don't think it's right to handle user situations based off of preference for the user, which I have heard you say that you do...

I have had a couple of E Tickets submitted several weeks ago. Should I assume that we are at a point where you won't listen to me? Granted we don't have to dicuss this here but I have already PMed you and you don't answer.

yeah, my e ticket about my step brothers bans was never answered at all either. shame they aren't wicked step brothers or maybe it would have been answered by now 1 month after i submitted it.

and whoever said i should quit before i dig myself deeper i dont really care. i was gonna say they can't ban me for expressing my opinion at how i was treated so i'll just go on, but seeing as they don't like me they probably would. and anyways i changed my point, i'm now just agreeing with the idea that a proper system of crimes and consequences is drawn up. if they make it so that no-one is able to complain about unfair treatment then surely people like me couldn't complain and upset all your wonderfly sensible lives on here? because when i was banned it seemed completely unfair to me, whereas maybe if there was something i could have looked at that showed exactly why i got the ban i did when others didn't then maybe i wouldn't have felt so hard done by.

[SirSebstar]

Maybe if you sould try to take up reading the warnings sent to you, and maybe the rules and code of conduct and the like, the chat convos, the PM's. Yup I understand you have nothing to look at. yup

[albertq]

Maybe if you sould try to take up reading the warnings sent to you, and maybe the rules and code of conduct and the like, the chat convos, the PM's. Yup I understand you have nothing to look at. yup

as in there aren't garunteed punishments for each thing. half the things you just named there are nothing to do with this anyway (the PMs came after my ban so how could i read them and then stop, chat convos - i got no idea what you're talking about etc), but i'm talking about a way of making sure that punishments are hadned out equally and fairly. she told people to stop talking three times and other people continued as well as me, but apart from that Arbustos guy no one got even a warning. which i don't see as particularly fair. i'm not saying that i wasn't warned or anything, just that other people weren't punished alongside. maybe if i sucked up to wicked and kissed her ass all the time i'd have been let off.

[GabonX]

Well if what you are saying is accurate then it sounds like Albert is in the wrong here. I still don't think it's right to handle user situations based off of preference for the user, which I have heard you say that you do...

I have had a couple of E Tickets submitted several weeks ago. Should I assume that we are at a point where you won't listen to me? Granted we don't have to dicuss this here but I have already PMed you and you don't answer.

depending on what the eticket was about, it may not be wicked's department, so therefore has nothing to do with wicked. Yet most assume that everything is wicked's responsibility.. there are a few mods, not just wicked.

It was about feedback...

[clapper011]

yes...and wicked is not the only mod on here that looks at feedback.

[paully]

some people should be removed from their position for abusing thier power. I would be happy if even one person was removed. just as long as it is wicked. many agree I'm sure. why not put that to a vote?

[paully]

I am sure I am not the only one that has felt the rath of her ill tempered, irrational mood swings. she does more than she should for her friends and nothing for others, exept maybe make things worse. would love to hear everyones stories.

[Soloman]

some people should be removed from their position for abusing thier power. I would be happy if even one person was removed. just as long as it is wicked. many agree I'm sure. why not put that to a vote?

Get a life and quit cyber stalking Wicked