What's new

SloanFAIL!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I didnt initiate anything. I only called her a troll after she had done the same to me...on more than one occasion. I didnt say anything about her being ugly. Dont put your own views of her on me. I have no idea what she looks like.
 
Frankly it's there for two reasons:

1) It's a relic of an older moderating system in which moderators could act more unilaterally.
2) Jason and colton have learned through experience that virtually everyone complains about getting moderated and have freed the moderators from being obligated to respond to direct complaints for being unfair.

BTW that it took Sloanfeld over a year to get banned is an example of how weak the moderating system really is since he is basically the definition of an internet troll. That this thread turned into complaints about moderation is absurd.

It is ironic that it is you who is responding to this.
The point is Trout is the libtard version of Sloanfeld in how he acts on this forum, but most of the mods make excuses and exceptions for their assbook friend.
 
colton said:
Has anyone ever received an infraction just for calling someone a troll?
I did, colton.

No, that's incorrect. To be precise, you received an infraction for saying, "Good lord, shut your ugly troll face!" That's quite a bit more of a personal attack then just calling someone a troll.
 
If you don't like what someone else has to say put them on ignore. If you don't like the way the board is moderated go to another one. There are many out there to choose from.

Edit: Directed at no one in particular
 
It is ironic that it is you who is responding to this.

I'm sure you believe that is the case. Many posters seem to believe that I operate under a different set of rules as everyone else. In one version that should have greater strictures on what I say because I'm a moderator and in another that I apparently never come under sanction and thus have an unlimited ability to speak. Neither are true (in truth, I personally have an active infraction and a warning as I type this, and in both instances I acknowledged I deserved as much) and the accusation is universally self-serving to the accuser.

The point is Trout is the libtard version of Sloanfeld in how he acts on this forum, but most of the mods make excuses and exceptions for their assbook friend.

Trout has been suspended multiple times and was previously banned on the old board. To say that Trout acts with impunity and that the mods "make excuses and exceptions" is simply inaccurate.

I know that you are unaware as to Trout's exact warning and infraction status at any given time, but I feel extremely confident saying that this is an instance (like many) in which you are speaking from ignorance.

As to the assertion that there is some difference between how Trout and sloanfeld are treated because Trout is a "libtard":

1) Most of the moderating staff are conservative.
2) Trout isn't exactly a super-liberal guy.
3) Those distinctions have never come up, literally not a single time, in any moderating discussion.
4) In fact, some of all of the moderators (including myself) are annoyed with Trout's various antics at any given time.

Trout has become annoyingly proficient at walking the line and whenever he gets close to banishment he cools down for a few months until some of his infractions roll off. All the people who get banned are unable to do the same. There were (to my knowledge) exactly two instances in which posters who were banned had a legitimate return on the old board through a prolonged negotiation with Jason. In one of those instances the poster was subsequently rebanned, the other was Trout who at this point would be back anyway after the general amnesty of Summer 2010.
 
No, that's incorrect. To be precise, you received an infraction for saying, "Good lord, shut your ugly troll face!" That's quite a bit more of a personal attack then just calling someone a troll.

That's a personal attack worth an infraction?
 
That's a personal attack worth an infraction?

Context matters. Moderation is a judgment call. That is our judgment that matters, not yours. If you would like to participate in a non-moderated forum 4chan always has its doors open.
 
Just so we're clear. The context was that she called me a troll first. So NEVER call someone an ugly troll face (is there any other kind of troll face?) after they have instigated you numerous times first.
 
So rep comments need to be reported one at a time to be considered harassing?

They need to get reported at all. Some people will report them one at a time, but most will report a rash of them at once. Nobody here is scanning everyone's rep to see what is kosher or not. So in that case, it's a mixed bag. Like I said, you can call me the most vile things you want in my rep. I won't report it, I don't care, and I have pretty thick skin though I'm not above being in a flame war if my mood dictates it. But others will and since the same rules apply it's a do at your own risk sort of thing.
 
So rep comments need to be reported one at a time to be considered harassing?

Or bundle them and send them in a PM.

Can I get your public "judgement call" on some rep comments?

Not your personal moderator. Sorry. Simply not in the mood to play this game.

Let's leave it at this: we'll moderate the site in the way we want and you're not entitled to an opinion that we have to listen to on that subject. That's really the whole story. If you would like to participate in a non-moderated forum 4chan always has its doors open.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top