Gyp Rosetti
Banned
I agree with Trout wholeheartedly. That said my RT thread that was deleted was about a poster. A poster whose username was allowed by the God of this site. If it was such a provocative name, it shouldn't have even been allowed.
Which Is Worse?
- Thread starter Scat
- Start date
Excuse me for not immediately recognizing each and every sex term. Username was deleted the same time the thread was deleted.
Funny how it's a small few people in here complaining. Same ones that can't seem to draw a line and understand that prior record does play into the moderator voting decision.
Trout has been "perma"-banned twice before. As I've always said, it's only a matter of time...
Trout has been "perma"-banned twice before. As I've always said, it's only a matter of time...
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
So you're planning on him being "perma"banned before he is? Hmmmm... sounds fair.
It is inevitable, unless he takes the VINYLONE route.
Prior record matters. That's just the way it is. We can see what all of each user's past warnings and infractions were for and when new posts are reported we frequently check to see what they've been warned/infracted for in the past. Repeat behavior is more likely to be infracted than a one-off.
For example, under current moderating practice we've generally given those who evade the profanity filter one warning with an infraction on subsequent attempts. The theory here is that after you've been given the warning you "know the rule" so future violations can be handled with a greater eye to consequences.
Trout's most recent infraction was for leaving abusive reputation comments. He's received infractions and warnings for the exact same behavior at least four times. I like the guy, but he just can't leave well enough alone. At some point, personal responsibility does have to kick in. Trout is the poster that we are most often accused of giving preferential treatment, but he's also a poster that everyone complains whenever he goes dark due to too many infractions. Obviously this is one the mods can't "win" in the public view.
As for spoonerisms: My understanding is that a couple have been effectively grandfathered in rather than requiring that some long-term posters change their usernames. That's the way it is.
For example, under current moderating practice we've generally given those who evade the profanity filter one warning with an infraction on subsequent attempts. The theory here is that after you've been given the warning you "know the rule" so future violations can be handled with a greater eye to consequences.
Trout's most recent infraction was for leaving abusive reputation comments. He's received infractions and warnings for the exact same behavior at least four times. I like the guy, but he just can't leave well enough alone. At some point, personal responsibility does have to kick in. Trout is the poster that we are most often accused of giving preferential treatment, but he's also a poster that everyone complains whenever he goes dark due to too many infractions. Obviously this is one the mods can't "win" in the public view.
As for spoonerisms: My understanding is that a couple have been effectively grandfathered in rather than requiring that some long-term posters change their usernames. That's the way it is.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
Idea. Might it help if an infraction results in an automatic loss of one point in rep power? I'm not saying people give too much of a **** about it but it could help. Trout seems to care some about his rep power. And perhaps people will think twice before posting something shady. Just an idea. One that would have to be done manually but still. Certainly couldn't hurt.
Good idea, but I don't think there's anyway to manually adjust rep power, so there would be no way to implement it.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
I also agree with maybe finding some other measures other than banning him. Im hoping its only for two weeks; seriously, even if he hated my guts, I think I can fairly speak for the whole board when i say that he is one of the many reasons I go here in the first place. Hes always one of the first posters that comes to mind when I think of why this forum can be such an awesome place, and its for many reasons. I think the board pushing forward to ban him permanently might come back to bite them in the *** later into the future. I dont think the moderators realize how crucial the top 10 or so posters of a board are, to its health; posters like Trout are what seperates a forum like this one, from something like the Jazz section of Real GM. Just saying.
First of all, nobody is "pushing to ban him". Secondly, just because someone is in the top 10 posters (according to you, but probably not everybody else), should they be moderated differently? Given MORE leniency? Allowed MORE warnings/infractions?
What is your solution? Declare that the rules don't apply to certain posters?
And for the record I believe Trout was banned off of RealGM in less than one week.
It should be just like when Michael Jordan is sitting on five fouls, it's tied and there's less then a minute left in the game. He'd basically have to punch someone in the face to pick up that last foul.
I'm not saying Trout is the Michael Jordan of Jazzfanz...he's much much bigger than that.
Did you feel the same way about Hopper? Sloanfeld? What about gasol_stopper_ante_tomic (you know...the poster who only posted mis-leading thread titles)?
And for the record, in MY view, that is what happens. With franklin, when he was at three infractions, we voted to combine two offenses into one single infraction. That actually happens quite a bit. But again, if someone spends enough time trying to walk the line, eventually they trip over it.
No. I honestly just think it sucks that posters like that insist on getting themselves banned. I don't know what the rush must be like getting all those infractions, but I assume it must be worth it to them or they wouldn't do it.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
Insist? Worth it? I doubt reason comes into play.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
a) Jasons comments came across like that, to me at least.
b) Yes, I do. I realize that you'll be quick to point out how every should be dealt with equally under the Jazzfanz code of conduct" or whatever, but to me banning one of the most respected posters, a poster who likely has kept many visitors glued to the forum to begin with, over something like harrassing people in rep comments seems awfully tedious to me. Again, I am not a moderator so I do not know how many times (if, at all) Trout was warned specifically for harrassing other posters, but seeing as he, along with other senior posters contrinbutes so much to the health of this place, I think that the moderators should definitely be more lenient. Now you can shoo away my comments as naive, or unrealistic but trust me; if you all resort to just ridding the place of great posters, the forum will suffer. So what should be done? Not my decision.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
Seeing as your a lawyer, I would imagine you're all for universally treating all posters similarily, and not creating "double-standards" for more senior posters who violate forum regulations. I just think an internet forum is a place where I believe itd be appropriate to work with double-standards, simply for the health, popularity and overall enjoyment of an already pretty awesome forum.
For the record, your point could be summarized into the notion that Jazzfanz's "leniency" with certain posters, could well be why Jazzfanz is so successful in comparison to RealGM. Maybe thats why RealGM sucks, because they dont ever give their better posters a chance ie banning Trout in less than a week. Are you catching my drift?
freakazoid
Well-Known Member
I like Trout just as much as the next guy, but the fact is he's been perma banned TWICE, and yet he's been allowed to come back twice. Maybe the mods should just throw out the rules altogether for certain posters? Trout is a big boy. He knows what he's doing. Time to suck it up and chill until some of his infractions drop off. Either way, enough of the bitching about the moderating. At this point, Trout has nobody to blame but himself if he comes back and gets perma-banned for the third time.
He might just do it on purpose, so that the board will constantly be guessing whether or not a new member is the Trout.
I was going to post some ideas on how to tweak the system of issuing infractions and banning people (one that would benefit Trout) and then realized it doesn't really matter. Trout could play by the rules if he wanted to. The system and the rules are reasonable enough. A new system that was more lenient would only encourage posters like Trout to find the new limit, and cross it.
Really, this isn't a matter of the big mean Jazzfanz staff picking on Trout or anyone else, it has to do with Trout not following the rules. If Trout wanted to follow the rules I'm sure he could.
That said, Trout has been over to my house a few times. He's nice as hell and a fun guy to be around. He's welcome anytime. If, however, when he came over and I said "please don't put your feet on my couch," he put his feet on my couch, or I said "don't say mean nasty things to my other guests" he said mean nasty things to my other guests, he wouldn't be welcome anymore. Plain and simple.
Really, this isn't a matter of the big mean Jazzfanz staff picking on Trout or anyone else, it has to do with Trout not following the rules. If Trout wanted to follow the rules I'm sure he could.
That said, Trout has been over to my house a few times. He's nice as hell and a fun guy to be around. He's welcome anytime. If, however, when he came over and I said "please don't put your feet on my couch," he put his feet on my couch, or I said "don't say mean nasty things to my other guests" he said mean nasty things to my other guests, he wouldn't be welcome anymore. Plain and simple.