LifeOnaPlate
Well-Known Member
Your post #128.
https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/2685-Boozer-who?p=66496&viewfull=1#post66496
Bye. Time to leave for home.
Boozer who?
- Thread starter doubledribble
- Start date
Your post #128.
https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/2685-Boozer-who?p=66496&viewfull=1#post66496
Bye. Time to leave for home.
As much as a certain segment of posters likes to complain about the JF moderating policies, this is the way most long-established team boards operate. TroutBum lasted about 4 days on Realgm before being punted out of existence. The irony of Hopper's post is that it seems to imply that all boards that ban users based on moderation policies are equally bad because it places the power to destroy in the hands of someone, but I think it's difficult for any reasonable person to conclude that JF is as capricious as whatever Raptors board he pulled that from. Alas when the world is black and white the obvious difference is rendered meaningless.
Those that claim not to understand the rules here are a small but vocal subset, and probably always will be.
Hopper
Banned
From what I can tell (not much, really) the raptor's board has a rule against insulting others (calling someone "dumb" or a "moran" is deemed to be an insult). If that's the rule, and if it's uniformly enforced, then fine. Frankly, I get a little weary of those kinda petty insults bein bandied about on this here board 24/7. But there are also indications that it is not a uniformly enforced rule.
This was apparently a dispute between a Lithuanian poster, who suggested that Klieiza was their best shooter and should be gettin more shots (he was 2-4, at the time), and a Spaniad moderator who said Klieiza was terrible. The poster said he was an idiot who didn't even look at the stat sheet before making the proclamation, and suggested he was prejudiced against Klieza because Lithuania beat Spain in some European contest. Any of this sound kinda familiar?
The Spaniard mod apparently issued two quick infractions, and then an admin stepped in and administered the coup de grace to the poster for his last post, explaining that he was a "jackass." The mod who gave the infractions indicated that he had been lenient with this poster in the past when the banned poster was presumably "insulting" other (non-mod) posters. The point has to do with human nature, not Jazzfanz.
I have yet to see ANYBODY, let alone some subset, claim they understand the rules here. At least not anybody who could back up their claim with any kinda coherent explication of the rules.
From the way I understand Colton, punishable offenses are what 3 mods deem them to be. Once that's determined, you'll know what you did "wrong."
I don't know what 2814 was issued an infraction for (such things seldom are known by any non-moderator), and I didn't pay particularly close attention to every post he made. That said, I didn't see anything that stood out as bein unusual in this forum. Which leads one to wonder why he got an infraction when others don't. Because the mods "just don't like him," mebbe?
All I said is that I would prefer that "pretexts" be avoided, for the sake of clarity if nuthin else. If a poster is punished because the mods don't like him or because they disagree with the positions he takes, they should just say so, rather than claim it is because he violated some "rule'" which they routinely let those they like violate.
Last edited:
...says the guy that pointedly ignored the words I added in parentheses.
But anyway, I wasn't clarifying the meaning behind the rules. I was correcting the point that *you* were trying to make, so that it was closer to reality.
You're putting words in my mouth. *You* are the one that tried to phrase the rules that way, not me. I was merely fixing some of the more egregious errors with the way you stated things.
Frankly, these seem clear enough to me. As they do to 99.9% of the other posters.
https://jazzfanz.com/faq.php
As I think I've said in the past, maybe it's *you* who have the genuine problem here, not the other 99.9% of us.
Hopper said:
If a poster ever gets "punished" because the mods don't like him, or because the mods disagree with the positions he takes, we'll be sure to say so. So far it hasn't happened.
gregbroncs
Well-Known Member
I understand the rules fine. Seems like your the one not quite bright enough to understand them. Seems pretty basic to me as well as most of the rest of the posters on the board. At least that's the way it seems to me.
If you don't like the rules or disagree with how they are enforced, well then don't post.
Hopper
Banned
Colton, I know you don't want to get into any substantive discussion of the rules, so I won't even try. I will, however, in response to your 99.9% claim, note a few things, viz:
1. There is a difference between understanding the rules "as written" versus the rules "as applied" (the "real rules," in my vernacular).
2. It is easy to SAY that "Everybody knows what (disorderly conduct, homophobic comments, trollin, etc.--insert your own prohibition) means." Notwithstanding their smug self-assurance, any such claim is prima facie foolish, if ya ax me.
3. The difficulty in trying to understand rules "as applied," becomes much more acute when a phrase like "disorderly conduct" (not a rule here, just a hypothetical example) is deemed to include such things as the utterance of words in the reverse order intended (in a "disorderly" manner, see?). Again, that's just a hypothetical example. It could be anything, like mebbe makin a post in such a "disorderly" fashion that some posters can't tell which parts of it are quotations and which aint.
4. The problem is further exacerbated when any simple, sincere request for an indication of what a phrase like "homophobic comments" is intended to include is deleted from a post and ignored. One almost gets the impression that the mods want to keep things as ambiguous, imprecise, and malleable as possible, to give them maximum latitude when voting and dispensing punishment, according to their personal agenda.
Hopper
Banned
Yeah, Greg, and I understand the most ultra-modern nuances of string theory just fine. If you don't believe me, prove that I don't.
gregbroncs
Well-Known Member
You said nobody claimed to understand them. I just did.
So now your changing your argument? What a surprise!
Inn Dawn
Well-Known Member
Hopper
Banned
Not changin my argument at all (it wasn't even an "argument," but...). Care to give a coherent explication of the rules for us, if your intention is to take up my "challenge?"
If you do, let's just start slow.
1. Can you clearly state what "homophobic" means, as that term is used in the newly promugated rules?
2. If so, can you expound upon that meaning so as to give us a clear idea of what a "homophobic comment" is?
If it matters, I read it differently and didn't think he was putting words in your mouth.
Not that I'm bitching, but the rules are fully subjective. I don't know how anyone could defend they are not. People flame and troll on here all the time, use foul language, etc. It appears to me that there's a line to cross that is up to moderator opinion. That leaves plenty of room for biased judgment, as The Hopper is complaining. Personally, I think this is the way it should be, and hope the moderators as judges are chosen well.
One question I have regarding the process is once a violation is issued can it be removed? I've received one demerit for "making a homophobic slur". I used an idiom that the 3+ moderators who voted for my infraction obviously weren't familiar with, and took it exactly opposite as its meaning. What I'm wondering is if I can appeal this infraction in the case I start pushing the violation limit. I don't plan on it or anything, but it would be a nice cushion to have.