Forum - View topicComplaint about moderator hypocrisy
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next |
Author | Message | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ChibiKangaroo
Posts: 2941 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I saw the post that was made a short while ago regrading Blood-'s interactions with certain reviewers and mods. At the time, I had started to write something to respond to that thread regarding certain poor moderation habits, but I decided that it wasn't really my business so I ended up not posting that response. Well, I think I should rectify my error.
I should say that I don't think this applies to all mods. I have no problems with any of the mods actually with the exception of Psycho 101. This is because all interactions I have had with any other mod, with one singular exception that happened years back (and was addressed), have involved the mod being cordial, explaining what they believe should happen, and everyone moving on. Psycho 101 is the only mod, currently, who tends to become rude, belligerent and condescending when acting as a mod. Why did I put "hypocrisy" in my title? Because he routinely accuses others of being rude, belligerent, and condescending, provides absolutely no evidence of that, and then acts rude, belligerent and condescending himself. Exhibit A: In a recent post, some other forum member asserted that my opinion on an anime was not valid because I had not watched the OVA. The thread was for the anime series, not the OVA, so I gently stated this, with a smiley face to show I was not attempting to be harsh.
Apparently, someone reported that response. What could they have possibly reported that for??? Your guess is as good as mine. I assume that Psycho 101 is actively moderating that thread, so he received the report notice or otherwise became aware of it. Now, at this point, I would expect a mod worth their salt would be able to look at that, recognize that this was actually just an innocuous reminder about what the forum thread was about, and not be baited into action based on what is clearly a troll report. This whole "troll reporting" thing is a separate issue. I think there are some members who abuse the reporting system by making false reports of rule violations, with the intention of disrupting a thread and silencing opinions they don't agree with. Interestingly, Psycho 101 seems to be the only mod who routinely falls for this. But anyway, of course, Psycho 101 leaps into action. Quotes my little friendly reminder there, and says I am being "condescending" and of course, "refuse to acknowledge or consider anyone else's opinions".
Now, before I go into the abject hypocrisy of Psycho 101, which I shall indeed get to, let's consider whether he was actually telling the truth in everything he said in the above quote. (Since he likes to throw these claims around without providing any evidence, i am going to provide the evidence, a lot of it, just to show how overwhelmingly wrong he is.) Specifically, let's ask whether I was "refusing to acknowledge or consider anyone else's opinions". Granted, this claim is virtually indefensible just based on the fact that the majority of my responses tend to quote someone and directly address my thoughts on whatever point they were making, but I will try to limit my examples to situations were I specifically agreed with or indicated that their point would be valid and possibly correct under certain circumstances. Let's start from the beginning: Page 2, AMB episode review thread
Both acknowledged and considered the opinions of the reviewer and other members of the forum who were commenting on Super Deformed mode and Elias' mannerisms, both positive and negative opinions. Page 3, same thread
Acknowledged and considered meiam's opinion on the Chise character. Page 3 again
Me acknowledging and considering both Theron's argument that AMB and 12K are different (and specifically agreeing that the characters were developed differently, but for a reason i thought was different than Theron's) as well as Joshua Zarate's statement that we are only 3 episodes in. The implication being that my opinion might change to align more with his if things changed beyond episode 3, but that at that moment I thought it could be better. Page 5
That was in response to Blood- saying I was just giving my own opinion, and thus it it is not "bad writing" in an objective sense. What did I do? I agreed with him that it was just my opinion, based upon what I was seeing or not seeing. Said it might work for other people too. Also acknowledged and considered the argument by some that the character would be more fleshed out later in the series, and said it would change my perspective were that to occur. Also page 5
Me acknowledging and considering Gina Szanboti's position that a crystal effect created by the character could be dangerous. Later, after Zrnzle500 stated that I was underestimating Gina's point, I followed up with this:
Page 6, same thread
Me acknowledging and considering zrnzle500's statement that certain materials in the OVA solve the issue I was complaining about. Granted, I still believe that the anime not having that stuff was a problem for the anime, but certainly acknowledging that such materials could impact a consideration of the property beyond the anime. Page 8
Should be pretty self explanatory. Go out of my way to acknowledge and consider everything that this guy said, and even thank him for adding to the discussion. Also page 8
Me reacting to both Gina Szanboti and Alan45's interpretation of the theme of the show. Acknowledged and considered that they both had a good interpretation, but disagreed, also considering the opinions of two other forum members. Page 10
Acknowledged and considered both the reviewers positive commentary on the talking animal aspect of the show, as well as Hiroki not Takuya's commentary on the main character being kidnapped too many times. Also page 10
Me acknowledging and considering mikasa_su_casa's point that Chise doesn't need training to become powerful due to the way magic works in the show. Still thought it was weird for my tastes, but point taken. Page 11
Me responding to 鏡, admitting my statement about the system of magic not making sense was erroneous as stated, since it can make sense in universe even if I disagree with it from beyond 4th wall. Page 13
Me acknowledging and considering that everything 鏡 is saying as far as the story's explanation for the MCs depression is accurate, notwithstanding my disagreement on theme to that point. Page 16
Me responding to 鏡 (after acknowledging he or she was correct and I was incorrect on the definition of theme), where I complimented him/her for their debating skills, which I do think are pretty solid notwithstanding my disagreements, but realizing we were getting too off topic. Page 26
Me acknowledging and considering Theron's point that the world of AMB would not likely be developed beyond Chise and Elias's relationship, indicating my growing enjoyment of that other world and character building in the recent episode. Page 28
Me acknowledging and considering zrnzle500's point that Chise had grown in her abilities even as I was complaining about her emotional development. Page 31
Me acknowledging and considering zrnzle500's point that Natsume's Book of Friends was similar to AMB, and would be an example to show that Chise's reactions in AMB made sense in another property. Notwithstanding my divergent view that Natsume adapted to his circumstances in ways much different than Chise, I still did go and look at that show and try to understand it since zrnzle500 brought it up as an example. So again, Psycho 101 said that I "refuse to acknowledge or consider anyone else's opinions". I've just provided no less than 17 examples proving that what he said was a blatant lie. Why does Psycho 101 feel the need to lie about me? I guess it's a good question for the admin. He could have just as easily responded to me without putting that lie in there. I guess it might be that he feels like he needs to make me look particularly bad in his responses, so he can later build on those lies with more lies and act as if they are the truth because a mod said it 10 times. He's creating "alternative facts," in today's parlance. Will he own up to the fact that he lies about me and apologize? Not likely. The last time I confronted him with this privately in a PM, he ignored it until I had to complain about that to someone else. Of course, his ultimate response was just more abusive language directed toward me. No accountability for anything he says. None. You want to know what accountability is? Earlier I said he was being stubborn because I had assumed he deleted my response on this from the AMB thread. He informed me someone else did (and also threatened to put me on moderation for saying he was being "stubborn," I mean really?). But you know what? I was wrong about that. Sorry, Psycho 101, for wrongly thinking it was you. Of course, it is impossible for me to know who does it in such scenarios since there is no communication from the mod staff on that these days. There used to be a note left in the thread by the mid who deleted things. Apparently that's not being done anymore. But anyway, that's what accountability looks like Psycho 101. You make an error, you own up to it. It's time to stop with the lies. Now, I said I was also going to mention hypocrisy. It's in the thread title. This refers to Psycho 101 claiming others are "rude," "condescending," or something similar. Now, anyone can look at the above 17 direct quotes from me from the thread in question to see that my banter was largely polite. Even in the sections not quoted, I never used crude language when disagreements were more passionate. However, why don't we take a look at some of Psycho 101's recent comments while moderating?
What exactly is a "nerd rage tantrum?" Is that somehow less of an insult than "stubborn?"
Condescending?
A little rude? And from that same thread.
I really think you should care. The fact that you don't speaks volumes. You can't get on your high horse posting lies and hypocritical statements about things you think are wrong with me, and go around saying that you don't care if people think you are a good mod. [Edit]: I changed the thread title to be less imflammatory. Errinundra. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dtm42
Posts: 14084 Location: currently stalking my waifu |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Um, I completely understand that you wanted to be thorough and provide lots of evidence, but your post is so long that I kind of got lost (or rather lost interest) halfway through. Did we really need a blow-by-blow with big blocks of quotes? Most of your post is just AMB stuff you said to other people rather than your specific concerns with Psycho 101's moderating style.
(just trying to offer constructive criticism) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ChibiKangaroo
Posts: 2941 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yea I kind of figured 4 or 5 examples wouldn't be enough for some people. 17 is a nice number. Also, I provided short summaries after each quote. It may be easier just to read those, but wanted to be sure the evidence was there as well to be thorough and as honest as possible for those who want to see it for themselves. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Errinundra
Moderator
Posts: 6583 Location: Melbourne, Oz |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Your thread OP demonstrates the manner in which your posts in the AMB thread are making it tiresome for people. Obsessive repitition of a point of view is never persuasive. I think of religious hucksters on city street corners: passers-by just wish they would go away.
I've just read through all your posts in the thread. If I consider them individually they are well within the rules of this forum. Whether they are insightful or patently wrong when they argue against the norm is immaterial. The issue arises with the ceaseless nitpicking and re-statement of one point of view. Sure, others have encouraged your behaviour with their responses (and I give you marks for not being baited by Blood-) but the obsessive justifications too often head down the soapboxing path. I think again of those street corner missionaries. People end up wishing you would go away. Letting other people have the last word in an argument is not an admission of defeat or a sign of weakness. Make your point; make it clearly. It's on the record. People can always read it. Move on. AMB has parallels with The Twelve Kingdoms? Chise could have been realised better by the makers of the anime? Your arguments are interesting to read. Once. I appreciate contrary views. I react negatively when I'm hammered with them. Relax. Have confidence in your opinions. Consider not how to justify yourself; but rather, how to make the AMB thread (and other threads) a stimulating read for everyone. I'd like to see you continue as a valued member of the ANN community. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blood-
Bargain Hunter
Posts: 24137 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This thread was started by CK to complain about Psycho 101's moderation. Not only does your response have nothing to do specificially with the points that CK raised about him, but you managed to evoke my username in a discussion that has nothing to do with me. I, a while back, indicated in the TAMB episode review thread that I would not be responding to CK's posts and have not done so, so I find your citing of my username particularly egregious. I assume you are responsible for editing CK's thread title? If you did, I suggest you stick to your habitual heavy-handed editing fetish and leave me out of discussions that are not about me. Thanks in advance. Note: This last two sentences in my post above were written before Errinundra revealed himself as the thread title editor and before he re-inserted the word hypocrisy. Last edited by Blood- on Fri Dec 22, 2017 8:05 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ChibiKangaroo
Posts: 2941 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I considered a few times how exactly I should title the thread. I could have made it a generic comment on moderators, as you have edited it to, but I honestly felt like that would be unfair. I have no problem with the way that the other moderators handle situations. I've almost never complained about any of them. Like I said, there was only one instance a long time ago, and it didn't involve any of the current mostly active mods. It was clear that this thread was going to be about Psycho 101, so I felt that was the most fair thing for me to do and not act like I was trying to be vague or cast shade on everyone. Also, I explained why I included 17 instances of how Psycho 101's claim against me was a lie. Because if I had only done 3 or 4 or 5, someone could just go and try to find a few things to try and counter that. I wanted to make it irrefutably clear that he was lying. There is no way that anyone can dispute 17 examples where what he said about me was false, and no one has attempted to do so, including you in your response. I agree it is a bit heavy handed, but I feel like I had no choice but to be heavy handed in this instance because my complaints otherwise tend to be ignored or rationalized away. As I said, right now I can't imagine that Psycho 101 will do the right thing and own up to the fact that what he said about me was false. I've never seen him do it before. If he did, I would honestly say "we're good" and move on (assuming he didn't do that again in the future of course). I don't want to spend a lot of time putting together a post like the one I started this thread with. That was a lot of effort going back through the AMB thread and other threads. I don't relish that, and I don't relish the idea of having to be adverse to Psycho 101, but he gives me no choice. He refuses to take responsibility for any wrong he commits. He rationalizes it, as he did in the thread where he said he didn't care if someone thought he was a bad mod. He said the only people who think he is a bad mod are the bad forum members who break the rules. Thank you for acknowledging that my posts have been within the rules. I do actually try to stay within the rules. I'll be honest, there was a time years back where I did let things slip and trade insults. I made a conscious decision not to do that any more. That is why I do not like it when Psycho 101 says the things he does about me, particularly when it is demonstrably false just based on what is in the forum thread. Wouldn't anyone in the same situation also be frustrated? I get where you are coming from. My opinions sometimes are against the "grain" so to speak, and its not because I like being contrarian. I do just have a highly critical disposition towards a lot of anime these days. I don't hide it. I admit it when people put that out there. Doesn't mean I don't like the shows or am not entertained or having fun. It means that my opinions are often more critical. The issue then is, if there is a position of ANN that opinions which are not popular are going to be clamped down on. That is a question for others, not specifically the reason for this thread which is mainly just about Psycho 101's actions toward me. It was the reason that I originally considered posting in Blood-'s thread though, because even though I have had my disagreements with him, I do think it is important to question whether an opinion that is unpopular should be silenced simply because it is repeated. (In the case of his thread, it might be his opinion that a reviewer is not analyzing something correctly, where he is simply reacting to each review and seeing the same thing over and over. In my case, it is that I see something in an episode, and that same flaw keeps appearing episode after episode, often in different ways. Is the mere fact that I raise the issue each time it comes up some kind of offense such that the opinion should be clamped down on? - this is of course aside from any explicit rule breaking actions). But again, that is a different question. Perhaps it could be said to be relevant to this thread in that maybe that was Psycho 101's real reason for going after me, not the reason that was given in his response. But if that is the case, then I think the false reasons should stop being used and we should talk about the real issue. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Redbeard 101
Oscar the Grouch
Forums Superstar Posts: 16963 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The reason(s) I "went after you" are simple. You were reported for your behavior and after looking at the reported posts, and others in the thread, you were once again showing behavior that you have been warned about here on multiple occasions. End of story. You can treat it as some sort of personal crusade on my part but the truth is I don't care about you. I don't know you so I don't care one way or another. The same as I don't care about 99.99999% of the users here personally because I don't know them. They,and you, are random people on an internet forum that once I log off from I don't spend 1 second thinking about. If you have a problem with me then by all means please PM Zac or Tempest directly. Go ahead. The facts are quite clear. You are repeatedly reported by users. We get PM's about you and your conduct. You've been warned about this behavior several times. Those are facts and that's why I "went after you" in the AMB thread. There is no conspiracy nor is there anything more involved than those simple facts. If you didn't violate the rules, or the spirit of them, there would be no problem, simple as that. The mods have said time and time again to countless users express your opinions but do so civilly. It's rule #1 here. It's not unpopular opinions we don't like, it's rude behavior towards users when expressing those opinions we don't like nor tolerate. There is such a thing as violating the spirit of the rules as well when you consistently skirt the line of not violating them outright but still are disruptive and a detriment to the forums. I'm sorry but when multiple people report a user in multiple threads over a prolonged period of time for the same conduct that says to me that user is disruptive even if they didn't violate the LETTER of the law. Like several other users here once you get told to stop your disruptive behavior you go on these contrarian "they're out to get me and it's personal" rants. You also try and say how it's unfair because user X didn't get told to stop their disruptive behavior despite the fact nobody reported them thus no moderator stepped in. As I already said on that subject, if they don't get reported but you do that's just bad luck for you. Oh well. See the above point about not violating the rules and then there would be no problem. If you want to make this long diatribe, that's improperly quoted to give off false impressions it would appear, about how I'm out to get you then go right ahead. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ChibiKangaroo
Posts: 2941 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1. So you haven't disputed that you lied about me in the way that I documented above. You just think you are above any accountability for telling lies, perhaps because you "don't care about me" or apparently anyone else on these forums. Not a very good mentality for a mod. Caring seems to be the bare minimum qualification since it allows one to have perspective. 2. Errinundra already confirmed that they went through every single one of my posts in the thread and that not a single one of them violated any rule, as I have said. So I'm not sure what it is that you are going on about here. Why can't you just admit that you made an error in judgment? Why is it that you think you always have to he correct in every decision you make? It's not weakness to make mistakes, it is human. So no, it is not "end of story." As I have proven by extensive evidence, you have made unambiguously false claims about me. You lied and refuse to apologize for that or even acknowledge it. No one has been able to dispute that you lied. Yet, you think it is ok for some reason. 3. Whether I was reported by users is irrelevant if the reports are false. As I said, there are members who abuse the reporting system. They will report anything, whether it violates a rule or not. We have already established that I did not violate a single rule. We have also established that you lied when you claimed I was not acknowledging or considering other people's opinions. That was a complete fabrication. So what is left then? You claiming I somehow violated the "spirit of the rules," not by doing anything mean or cruel to anyone else, but apparently by holding an unpopular opinion and expressing that opinion based on what I saw in episodes of a show. Because again, you keep claiming that I was being rude but you provide absolutely no evidence of this (while at the same time, I provided several instances of you being rude and condescending, which you similarly don't apologize for). Another mod comes here and says they went through every single post of mine and couldn't find a single one that violated the rules, and you keep making these false claims. I provided extensive evidence of exactly how I was participating and giving validity and consideration to others opinions, and you ignore all of that and continue to hold to your lies. So yes, I will pm Zac and Tempest. You have to have some accountability Psycho 101. You have to have some kind of standard and not just keep putting forth false narratives when overwhelming evidence to the contrary is put right in front of your face. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Errinundra
Moderator
Posts: 6583 Location: Melbourne, Oz |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Now you're doing to my posts what you do to others'. Let me quote myself:
I tried to pull my punches but now I'll be more blunt: you're a right, royal pain in the neck and people are fed up with you. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dtm42
Posts: 14084 Location: currently stalking my waifu |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
But ChibiKangaroo's point still stands. He was accused of being "condescending and belittling" towards other users in the AMB thread, and yet no evidence of any such behaviour has been provided to support that claim. None. So it is natural for him to wonder/query on what basis that comment was made. Not following the social norm of leaving an discussion when one's point has been made doesn't win a person many friends, no matter how politely stated their arguments may be. However, it is not a disdainful or scornful act, and hardly warrants moderator attention. From what you've said I gather he wasn't insulting anyone, belittling anyone, acting like he was superior to anyone. His one real crime that I can see was to go off on unnecessary tangents *coughnarniacough*. So why the accusation of malicious conduct then? And the point of a discussion thread is to discuss things. It is quite clear from the examples that ChibiKangaroo gave that he was listening to people, acknowledging they had other viewpoints and taking their feedback into consideration.* While admittedly I have not read every post of his in that thread like you have, based on what I've seen your implication that he was soapboxing does not ring true. He was just responding to people who were responding to him who was in turn responding to their critiques of his critiques of the show. That cyclical back-and-forth is kinda how debating works. If the folks in the thread were truly fed up they too had the option to simply walk away, which would have shut down the debate immediately (even ChibiKangaroo can't argue with himself). * And yes, I know they were cherry-picked, but seventeen examples makes for a darn convincing argument. At least for the first twenty-something pages, the guy was indeed trying to positively engage with other people, often successfully. Later posts (like this one) are in my opinion questionable, but you've already stated that you didn't think they crossed the line. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ChibiKangaroo
Posts: 2941 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thank you dtm42.
And i don't really mind that. That's one of the reasons I don't respond to insults with insults anymore. I've mellowed out in that regard and can brush that off now But seriously, someone subjectively thinking one is a pain in the neck is often the end result of having an unpopular opinion and debating it. As we have all said, many people continue to discuss with me, because they are enjoying themselves having a thorough debate. On one instance (which I included in my quotes) I actually halted a debate myself because it had gone too far afield (with an express compliment to the person I was discussing it with no less!), but the vast majority of them are simply back and forth about what is happening in any particular episode. I'm not going to sit here and pretend everything I say should be praised by others, or that it is particularly insightful (I try, but make my own mistakes as well, or I might make a point that is kind of silly. That gets pointed out sometimes too, but hey, I try to take it in a humorous manner when possible and try my best to give some kind of explanation of my thought process, whether flawed or not ) Now, if I was in the forum just happily talking about how the more popular shows are awesome, no one would think I am a pain in the neck, am I right? They'd say, look at that CK, praising the same show I like, thumbs up! And if there was another critic in there raising the unpopular critique, that person would be the "pain in the neck" and that person would be getting reported by those who use the reporting system to shut down an unpopular opinion. That is kind of my point. That is ultimately what goes to the question of whether having the unpopular opinion is now an offence at ANN unless the person with such opinion only states it x many times? I mean, does that mean praising opinions can also only be stated x many times? Are there going to be hard rules on how many times one can say good things about a show? These are serious questions I think, and since ANN is putting itself forth as engaging in journalism, I think kind of important for any site that does that. I'll give you a practical example. Read Gabrielle's reviews on Rage of Bahamut, Virgin Soul. Personally, I thought they were great reviews. However, if you read perhaps the second half of them (maybe starting slightly before that, but I can't recall off the top of my head), she begins to have a distinctly negative view of the show. Certain very specific critiques begin to be made, and they are repeated over and over and over, in each following review. Why was that happening? Because the show kept doing the same things that caused the critique in the first place! So she kept repeating the critique! Now, some in the forum became very angry at her for repeating that critique. They made their opinions to that effect quite clear, and she got attacked a lot! I bet if they had a huge red "REPORT" button next to each of her columns, they would have been spamming that sucker, saying "she's being a pain in the neck!!" However, that is how journalism works. She wasn't being mean or cruel to anyone. She was giving her honest reviews based on what was happening in each episode. As I noted previously, the underlying issue here seems to be whether people who don't like one's opinion, no matter how politely it is stated, can successfully report that as some kind of vague offense if it is stated x number of times, because all of the other explanations about rule violations and not giving consideration to others that were put forth by Psycho 101 have been thoroughly debunked, not just by me. (And yet he still refuses to admit that!). If that were some new offense, then does it apply equally to praising opinions? Do reviewers now have a hard cap on how many times they can raise a particular critique of a show, lest some forum members think they are being a "pain" and wish to report that? Should there be a big report button next to reviews where people can report the reviewer for being too critical too many times? The slippery slope could go pretty far down. All that being said, I don't want to lose the point of this thread. This separate question is extremely important, but Psycho 101 still needs to be held to account for what is clearly bad behavior as a mod. And the thing that is extra frustrating is that it would take so little for him to not even have to deal with this thread. The separate question is really a question for the site, not specific to him. All he needs to do to eliminate my complaint about him is take accountability for his own mistakes, but he is too proud and won't do it. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blood-
Bargain Hunter
Posts: 24137 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I don't think ChibiKangeroo should be moderated, either. Don't get me wrong, I think she has a corrosive influence here at ANN but her crimes are stylistic more than anything else, at least until such time that ANN decides to officially outlaw "pedantic bullheadness" and "cheap, dishonest rhetorical argumentation*." I think the best option is for those who don't want to read her posts to simply not read her posts, which I am doing with the slight exception of this thread. I say "slight" because even here I'm not doing much more than skimming her stuff.
* I realize that something like "cheap, dishonest rhetorical argumentation" is a de facto violation of the "be polite and respectful" rule; the problem is that while it is easy to recognize when it is being done, it is difficult to "prove" in a legalistic, moderator-actionable sense. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ChibiKangaroo
Posts: 2941 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
^
You can correct me if I am wrong, but I think its because it is essentially an "intent" claim. Basically, the point would be even though so-and-so appears to be staying within all of the rules as stated, someone believes that their intent is defective in some way. This is very difficult to prove in any circumstance (yea especially in court), but perhaps even moreso than that online. Although one might feel that there are cues indicating it to be so. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blood-
Bargain Hunter
Posts: 24137 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I think it is more of a "results" thing than an "intent" thing. I have no doubt that the mods receive complaints about your posts. I'm not sure how aware you are of the extent of negative feeling towards your posting style... it's broad and deep. I know this both from past observation as well as access to the Community Forum where some of your, *cough* fans congregate. It's almost kind of impressive how much dislike you engender considering you actually stay within legal posting requirements (imo). You would certainly make the mods lives easier if your crimes where more obvious, like mine.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ChibiKangaroo
Posts: 2941 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lol. No, trust me, I am definitely aware that some forum members have less than generous feelings towards me. At this point in my life, I've decided to be at peace with it ;0 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
||
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group