A reminder of the rules on images, and our banning policy

Come on then Jameson, explain why my post is so laughable.

moi wrote:Come on then Jameson, explain why my post is so laughable.

Sorry. I just find it strange and amusing how people see the same thing in totally different ways - it wasn't a dig at you.

LewisD wrote:

F-Heonix wrote::|

This is madness.

?

No, this is SPARTA!!!!!!



































No wait, this is Grcade. My mistake

This whole episode has left a bad taste in the mouth and to be honest is pretty depressing. MCN, there's no shame in backing down here. Sure, you're frustrated at the apparent double standards of the moderating team, I can understand that, but is there really any need to drag up a post that may not ever have existed and drive out a great poster just to make a point? If I'm brutally honest, I think that if another forumite had made all this fuss there wouldn't have been quite so much fall out from it. You just seem generally disagreeable with everything you post, and people will naturally rally against you. I'm sure you're 'telling it how it is' and 'obeying the rules to the letter as we all should', but there's no fun there. This is a place to come to chill out, its really not the end of the world if somebody gets a two week ban while somebody else only gets one.

MCN wrote:It's like a strawberry floating playground at a primary school.

And you seem to want to turn it into detention. Out of the two options, I know which one I'd prefer.

This whole sorry episode has happened. Let's move on now.

OK, I'm going to drop it now. At least I know how the system works around here now.

Here is an interesting stat...

Banned user for reason “porn in gifs thread”
Sarge

11.46pm 16th March


Sarge was indeed banned for posting a dodgy gif in the pictures thread.


Can the other mods please confirm this for everyone.

Just struck me, MCN is like lone crusader Jim Garrison. Crashing through the corridors of power, trying desperately to uncover a conspiracy, whilst dark forces (Eighthours, ABCD and the bluehats) try to stop him at every turn.

I'm only reporting the truth.

abcd wrote:Here is an interesting stat...

Banned user for reason “porn in gifs thread”
Sarge

11.46pm 16th March


Sarge was indeed banned for posting a dodgy gif in the pictures thread.


Can the other mods please confirm this for everyone.

So he was banned for posting the gif that has caused this argument?

Well that's the real question, isn't it? Why? The how and the who is just scenery for the public. Sarge,Suzzopher, ABCD, the Mafia. Keeps 'em guessing like some kind of parlor game, prevents 'em from asking the most important question, why? Why was the pr0n removed? Who benefited? Who has the power to cover it up? Who?

Saint of Killers wrote:So he was banned for posting the gif that has caused this argument?

Allegedly.

Commander Jameson wrote:

Saint of Killers wrote:So he was banned for posting the gif that has caused this argument?

Allegedly.

I'm hoping more mods will come on and confirm it as well.

abcd wrote:Here is an interesting stat...

Banned user for reason “porn in gifs thread”
Sarge

11.46pm 16th March


Sarge was indeed banned for posting a dodgy gif in the pictures thread.


Can the other mods please confirm this for everyone.

Agreed. Garth banned him.

MCN wrote:OK, I'm going to drop it now. At least I know how the system works around here now.

strawberry float off, you actual cock.

Please tell us how we're supposed to retrospectively ban someone when there's no evidence of the image in question?

Let's say, hypothetically, that someone tells us a few days after the event that ComJam has posted something dodgy. A mod has a look. There's no evidence left. We ban him anyway. Can you IMAGINE the reaction to that? We're acting the very way we'd be EXPECTED to act if it was a non-bluehat under suspicion.

The only double standards here are yours, matey. At least we know how YOUR system works now: troublemaking idiocy with added snidey gooseberry fool and a double helping of ignoring salient points.

Eighthours wrote:
Let's say, hypothetically, that someone tells us a few days after the event that ComJam has posted something dodgy. A mod has a look. There's no evidence left. We ban him anyway. Can you IMAGINE the reaction to that?

I'm quite surprised yesterdays sig didn't warrant anything.

Anyway, can a line be drawn under this one now? Sarge can slope back and everything will back to normal until the next time.

There's absolutely no denying that MCN is 100% right in that the rules need to be consistent. The only reason he's come across as an ass is because of the timing/the person he singled out/the reaction it provoked, but that's happened, there's no point stringing it out. I've seen calls to ban MCN for this; no. You can't expect leniency on Skarjo, Karlprof etc then ask for MCN to be banned because he pissed Sarge off by making what he believed to be a legitimate claim. It's just massively reactionary and isn't helping anyone. Sure, MCN probably picked the wrong time to make his point, and maybe he didn't make it in the best way, but that doesn't mean he deserves this amount of vitriol when, if you ignore the details and the whole part about Sarge, all he's saying is that the rules need to be sensible and consistent, the punishments in context with one another. Of course they do. As a bluehat that was something I always stood up for, and will continue to feel the same even now. My opinions on the length/type of punishment is irrelevant for the sake of this discussion, that's another issue entirely, but for the forum to be pleasant and well-run the rules HAVE to be consistent for everyone. Mods, bluehats, regular users, Tiarny... we all answer to the same ruleset, we all suffer the same punishments, and anything else is just plain wrong. I understand where Rik's coming from with 'if you don't break the rules it doesn't affect you' but that's not quite true; it's frustrating to see, for instance, Karlprof get a two-week ban for trolling/abuse, then someone else getting away scott free for trolling/abuse. This isn't referring to anything or anyone in particular, just an example. But things do need to be consistent, there's no questioning that in my opinion.

I WANT THE TRUTH!

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!