Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
I hate to break it to you, but when I was at your house with Trout, he said many hurtful things to me that sincerely hurt my feelings and I was your guest. Did you do anything about it? No, sir, you did not.
Which Is Worse?
- Thread starter Scat
- Start date
I hate to break it to you, but when I was at your house with Trout, he said many hurtful things to me that sincerely hurt my feelings and I was your guest. Did you do anything about it? No, sir, you did not.
But was what he was saying the truth? It matters.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
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.
Agreed. But for the record, weren't you perma-banned once too?
The chinaman is not the issue here!
freakazoid
Well-Known Member
Yep. The only reason I'm still here is because of the amnesty that was allowed after the board crashed. Just the same, my perma-ban was my own fault, and I've never said anything to the contrary. I'm a prime example of someone who really shouldn't drink and post.
As far as I know, Trout is the only poster that was ever allowed back after a perma-ban(not counting amnesty), although I suspect GVC would have been if not for the GVC rule.
One Brow
Well-Known Member
LostTacoVendor was allowed back after a perma-ban. It didn't last.
Didn't that have more to do with the threat of a moderator revolt than for LTV's subsequent behavior?
I was not a mod at that time, but my understanding is that at least one moderator quit over it and LTV then violated what was communicated to him as a "zero tolerance policy."
I've also stated in the past that I believe that LTV would survive under current moderating standards. He's aware that he's welcome back under general amnesty and has chosen not to exercise that privilege.
There are several posters that have been perma-banned in the past where the prevailing sentiment among the moderators was that we liked the people but that they had effectively forced our hand to either enforce the rules or announce that the rules didn't really apply to all posters equally (which is something that a small contingent of the board will assert no matter what). Off the top of my head I know that several of us regretted feeling like we had to ban Freakazoid back in the day and there was a similar sentiment about franklin in this incarnation of the board.
gregbroncs
Well-Known Member
If they can't follow the rules why should they be allowed to post? Trout is a good poster but why should he be allowed to constantly break the rules? On most boards trout would have been gone long ago. The moderating on this board is extremely forgiving. Other boards I frequent would not have put up with his posting style for more than a couple weeks (if that long). I like the guys posts but don't pretend that he is being picked on. He has got to have by far the most infractions in the history of this site and the old board. If he can't follow the rules after all of that why should he be allowed a different punishment than the one that is in place?
I was not a mod on the former board at the time so I didn't know the details, but I recall feeling Ballijuana's banning was totally unfair. As was Freak's.
At any rate, as far as Trout is concerned, this is a two-week suspension, so why all the talk of permanent bans? Trout knows exactly where he stands with his infraction count, and he has an uncanny ability to walk the line until infractions expire and come off his record.
Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
At any rate, as far as Trout is concerned, this is a two-week suspension, so why all the talk of permanent bans? Trout knows exactly where he stands with his infraction count, and he has an uncanny ability to walk the line until infractions expire and come off his record.
Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
Good conversation. From the outside, most bans probably do appear "totally unfair". But as some have stated, they deserved it and we do have a pretty lenient policy - not the least of which is that any infraction requires the vote of three moderators. For the benefit of others, Trout and I spoke during his recent ban and he admitted that he crossed the line this time. Could have been just talk but...
I chatted with him yesterday and told him that he just needs to put some people on "ignore" but he said if only it was that easy. Well, it is. If someone's posts bug you so bad that you have to go out of your way to post inappropriate comments when leaving neg rep, ignoring them would be easier. There is only one person I feel this way about, but I can't put them on ignore, unfortunately. If I could, it would save me a lot of frustration.
Trout Facebook'd me yesterday to let me know that he wasn't protesting the suspension at all. In his words "I'm touched, but seriously -- I haven't said a word contrary to what you/cat/jason/colton have said. I'm enjoying my vacation, dammit!"
I think that makes it pretty case closed.
I think that makes it pretty case closed.
GVC
Well-Known Member
I am the original gangster. Respect.
I teach my kids that just because something is true, it doesn't make it ok to say it. My neighbors new baby looks exactly like a pig. Including weird coarse hairs where babies should not have hair. Seriously ugly kid. It doesn't make it alright to say "Hey Bob, your kid looks just like a pig! Sooo-eee!! Sooo-eee!! Keep him away from IHOP!"
But, your house, your rules. Just like JazzFanz.
Agreed. I have 1 on ignore now. I had 2 but took one off recently. It makes it a little weird to see the occasional comment flagged as on the ignore list, but it makes the board infinitely more readable (for me at least) as a result.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure I'm the guy YB is talking about. Awesome. On a totally unrelated note, I just think people wanna save money.
No, I could ignore you. The person I'm talking about can't be ignored because of their board duties. I can't put a moderator on ignore, unfortunately for me.