Which Is Worse?

[Deleted member 848]

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?

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.

 

[Deleted member 848]

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[Gameface]

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.

 

[Archie Moses]

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.

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.

 

[Gameface]

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]

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?

 

[YB85]

Agreed. But for the record, weren't you perma-banned once too?

The chinaman is not the issue here!

 

[freakazoid]

Agreed. But for the record, weren't you perma-banned once too?

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]

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.

LostTacoVendor was allowed back after a perma-ban. It didn't last.

 

[YB85]

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?

 

[sirkickyass]

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.