Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, who do you think said:

 

???

 

This is an online message board, not some stuffy 38th floor bureaucracy.

That has rules to be followed/enforced.  It's not that difficult to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, who do you think said:

 

???

 

This is an online message board, not some stuffy 38th floor bureaucracy.

I know I probably shouldn't even bother but I'm taking this bait a little.

 

There are a million message boards out there with just tons of garbage on it. This is one of the few that I joined and stayed with for years and years (I think 11 years now?) because there are rules to stop trolls/spam/crappy "blaze of glory" posters, ect. 

 

Sorry, but for the most part, we've got a great little community here that's produced some fun fantasy sports, for the most part good conversation, some cool designers and even a podcast.

To this day, I am still pleasantly surprised at what some people can post and it won't go off the rails too badly. The Loveline being a prime example, anywhere else that kind of thread would be littered with "just :censored: her and move on" kind of answers. 

 

In order for this place to be so great there has to be some rules, sorry man. /end rant 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol! Lol, really? Like a full ass DECADE later?! 😂

 

 Ok, so, who makes and enforces these “ironclad” rules? This is an Internet forum and not the UN council, correct? 

 

This is probably the most NFL style move I’ve seen the mods make in a LONG time. I get it in principle, I guess. Sort of. But at best this whole thing is going to be an unnecessary waste of time, and at worst you just offed your, legit, HIGHEST contributing member arbitrarily over some :censored: that happened in Obama’s first term.

 

EDIT: NOOOOO! Bush was still in office when this happened! I instantly nominate this thread for The Goldmine. 

 

I’m literally DYING over here right now 😂

 

I’ve gotta give you credit for consistency, though. In a decade and a half posting here, there hasnt been a single minute where you guys haven’t taken this entire thing WAY too damn seriously. Bravo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of us has to be here, but if we are here, there are rules to follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, LMU said:

The Admiral account was specifically created to circumvent the ban on TCR.  Also, that was at least his third or fourth different dupe account.

 

Our policy when finding a dupe of members not circumventing bans is to PM them and let us know which account to keep while we ban the other or merge the accounts, whichever situation we deem the most appropriate.

 

Understandable, but I'd apply the statute of limitations there as well. If there's a board member peacefully participating here for years (I think 2 years is a reasonable timeframe), and it's found that his account is a duplicate of a previously banned account, I think it's reasonable to give amnesty there, perhaps with a warning to that user. Consider it a "path to citizenship." ;)

 

Just think that banning a member for an offense committed 11 years ago is absurd. There needs to be some leeway in the policy there, at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is where I worried this new purge might lead. I know it's policy and all. Not fighting. He's just such a big part of the boards.

 

#FreeTheAdmiral ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kroywen said:

 

Understandable, but I'd apply the statute of limitations there as well. If there's a board member peacefully participating here for years (I think 2 years is a reasonable timeframe), and it's found that his account is a duplicate of a previously banned account, I think it's reasonable to give amnesty there, perhaps with a warning to that user. Consider it a "path to citizenship." ;)

 

Just think that banning a member for an offense committed 11 years ago is absurd. There needs to be some leeway in the policy there, at least.

Believe me, it was a reluctant move but since we were able to expose the Dom/Clement dupe and decided to not play favorites any sort of grace period would be subjective and arbitrary.

 

We'll explore a path to reinstatement.  The way the rules are established, and have been for years, is that any IP match for a banned account is an automatic trigger.  So, we were in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation: either pick and choose based off of biases and favoritism or interpret the rule exactly as written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, LMU said:

Believe me, it was a reluctant move but since we were able to expose the Dom/Clement dupe and decided to not play favorites any sort of grace period would be subjective and arbitrary.

 

We'll explore a path to reinstatement.  The way the rules are established, and have been for years, is that any IP match for a banned account is an automatic trigger.  So, we were in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation: either pick and choose based off of biases and favoritism or interpret the rule exactly as written.

You shouldn't have to repeat that. In fact, your Ric Flair / Shawn Michaels should have said it all.

 

It sucks - I hope The Admiral can return legally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Oh hey guys it's me.
 

So I went to check the board at lunch only to find out I'd been banned. I was like, whoa, that's weird. Was it something I said about recently fired Hockey Hall of Famer Chuck Kaiton? No, apparently I got banned for having been banned 11 years ago, which apparently became a serious issue at some point between 11 years ago and 11 hours ago. Which, yes, I did get banned under my original account because I, if I remember correctly, made fun of the Chinese government by making an insensitive joke -- I believe I said they were "reary mad" that the NFL cancelled a game due to human rights violations. Leave it to me to come out on the wrong side of human rights violations. 
 

However, to say nothing of the fact that I was slightly younger and slightly stupider than I am now, I was led to believe between then and now (I think someone even may have said it straight-up) that the initial ban was kind of flimsy in the first place and probably wouldn't have been one under a different mod staff and one of our new and improved pyramids of discipline, and while it wasn't okay that I'd said that, bygones were more or less bygones and I could go about talking to people about sports and stuff. So it was kind of a surprise and kind of a bummer to be told I'm not wanted here anymore because of some immaturity from before most active posters here were even registered. It seemed like most people, on and off the staff, appreciated most of my contributions to discussions, so you can't blame me for thinking this wasn't a big deal anymore.
 

I'm sure people on the staff can say that they had no choice in this matter and their hands were tied. No one believes you. Which is fine, I'm not for everyone, and evidently, now I'm not for anyone. But you're not robots or DMV employees or something. What happened here is that people in charge consciously decided they didn't want me here anymore and I absolutely, immediately had to be gotten rid of. I talk to most of the mods/admins on a regular and friendly basis and no one gave me a heads-up that they had to ban me because of The Rules, or that they were inundated with reports from members who demanded that I be banned, or even gave me any cold shoulder or silent treatment to tip me off that I was about to get kicked out of here. I suppose no one is entitled to that, but the other extreme -- which is to go about your business making jokes about hockey and reviewing albums you listened to while jogging, then find out you're gone -- doesn't seem like any way to run a railroad, either. But just own up to having it out for me and wanting me gone. Come on. This is a message board and we've grown old with the medium. We don't need to do Message Board Drama to this degree anymore.
 

I would like to continue talking to my online friends here as I have been doing but if it's that important to the people in power that I don't, then I guess I have to respect that and screw off for good. Thanks for everything, it was mostly sort of fun, I think. 

EDIT: uh this is obviously supposed to be the thread about me getting banned 

Edited by the admiral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

What the hell was that?

 

 

UPDATE:

Might I make a humble suggestion to the gods, the mods, the pods and/or the broads?

 

Perhaps it's time to revisit the entire "life without possibility of parole" concept entirely.  I completely understand that there are instances where a permanent exile is more than appropriate.  There are plenty of actions a place like this can have that you simply don't want going on, and as a privately operated system I hate to break it to my fellow Americans, but the 1st Amendment?  It doesn't apply here.

 

On the other hand, I'm not sure that dupe accounts or their discovery meet a standard that necessitates permanent exile.  It's always seemed to me to be akin to administering a death penalty to someone caught committing identity theft only without there being an actual victim - it's not entirely harmless, but not necessarily something beyond a "Knock this :censored: off and maybe, maybe we'll let you back in a year from now."  That's not for me to decide; certain lines to need to be drawn I realize, but for some offenses here the punishment does not seem to fit the crime quite right.

 

Perhaps it's time to implement a uniform reinstatement protocol, regardless of the circumstances that resulted in the banishment or a suspension, where after a prescribed period of time the person involved can at least apply for reinstatement, make a case for themselves, and then let the mods decide whether or not that person should be reinstated... and if so, to impose explicit conditions under which a permanent ban would be imposed and enforced.

 

I realize that such a procedure could and in some cases no doubt would backfire.  But taking a more... not lenient, but reformatory... posture, some who have been long gone from here might return, wiser for their experience, and willing to contribute to our overall experience.

 

On the other hand, I could just be goofed up on the Ambien I just took and I don't know what I'm talking about...  :D

Edited by Mac the Knife
Because, for some reason, I can't actually post in this thread; so I'm modifying my original post, which was in another thread entirely, but... I digress...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I got banned again, so I was just posting in the last place I had posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously the Lt. Brigadier General account has been banned.

 

Also, my stance on the issue has been repeated in this thread.  It was a LACK of bias that led the Admiral's ban, not a vendetta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, The Lt. Brigadier General said:

Oh hey guys it's me.
 

So I went to check the board at lunch only to find out I'd been banned. I was like, whoa, that's weird. Was it something I said about recently fired Hockey Hall of Famer Chuck Kaiton? No, apparently I got banned for having been banned 11 years ago, which apparently became a serious issue at some point between 11 years ago and 11 hours ago. Which, yes, I did get banned under my original account because I, if I remember correctly, made fun of the Chinese government by making an insensitive joke -- I believe I said they were "reary mad" that the NFL cancelled a game due to human rights violations. Leave it to me to come out on the wrong side of human rights violations. 
 

However, to say nothing of the fact that I was slightly younger and slightly stupider than I am now, I was led to believe between then and now (I think someone even may have said it straight-up) that the initial ban was kind of flimsy in the first place and probably wouldn't have been one under a different mod staff and one of our new and improved pyramids of discipline, and while it wasn't okay that I'd said that, bygones were more or less bygones and I could go about talking to people about sports and stuff. So it was kind of a surprise and kind of a bummer to be told I'm not wanted here anymore because of some immaturity from before most active posters here were even registered. It seemed like most people, on and off the staff, appreciated most of my contributions to discussions, so you can't blame me for thinking this wasn't a big deal anymore.
 

I'm sure people on the staff can say that they had no choice in this matter and their hands were tied. No one believes you. Which is fine, I'm not for everyone, and evidently, now I'm not for anyone. But you're not robots or DMV employees or something. What happened here is that people in charge consciously decided they didn't want me here anymore and I absolutely, immediately had to be gotten rid of. I talk to most of the mods/admins on a regular and friendly basis and no one gave me a heads-up that they had to ban me because of The Rules, or that they were inundated with reports from members who demanded that I be banned, or even gave me any cold shoulder or silent treatment to tip me off that I was about to get kicked out of here. I suppose no one is entitled to that, but the other extreme -- which is to go about your business making jokes about hockey and reviewing albums you listened to while jogging, then find out you're gone -- doesn't seem like any way to run a railroad, either. But just own up to having it out for me and wanting me gone. Come on. This is a message board and we've grown old with the medium. We don't need to do Message Board Drama to this degree anymore.
 

I would like to continue talking to my online friends here as I have been doing but if it's that important to the people in power that I don't, then I guess I have to respect that and screw off for good. Thanks for everything, it was mostly sort of fun, I think. 

EDIT: uh this is obviously supposed to be the thread about me getting banned 

He just sort of kicked this out of his head, you know?

 

Crap...I suppose this sets back his re-instatement efforts.  And I tend to doubt it was "had to have him gone now..." More like "Everyone knows his first account was banned, we  sometimes hear about "special treatment" and we've recently doubled-down on dupe accounts."

 

In general though, after that long, what's the point (and mods used to come within inches of saying as much)? It's not like one of those punks coming in every ten minutes to harass us until they get banned again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LMU said:

Obviously the Lt. Brigadier General account has been banned.

 

Also, my stance on the issue has been repeated in this thread.  It was a LACK of bias that led the Admiral's ban, not a vendetta.

I get that...from the cheap seats, I can't see why a vendetta would be happening.  But it seems like kind of a rigid lack of bias, given that the decision, at least defacto, had been made a long time ago.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*sigh*  Well, this explains why I couldn't like his response in the MLB Uniforms thread.

 

It's pretty simple, and those in power have explained that they felt they had no choice and pretty obviously stated they were planning on making policy decisions to reverse this.  It might have taken a few days to a few weeks, but it would have gotten done.  Any fighting against it would only serve to give evidence to why they shouldn't do it.  All anybody had to do was be calm and let it happen.

 

I hope that the response hasn't colored that decision.  We'll see how it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good grief. I'd like to go on record that this case, this one case, seems really silly. I hope you figure out the reinstatement quickly. 

 

The original TCR ban was stupid and kneejerk made by some mods who aren't even mods anymore, which is why nobody cared for the last decade that he was violating the dupe account rule. Weird to suddenly make it a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mods, you should have at least given him a warning, given that you’re supposedly on good terms with him/enjoy his contributions. It’s a little bit shameful how you conducted yourselves here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

Mods, you should have at least given him a warning, given that you’re supposedly on good terms with him/enjoy his contributions. It’s a little bit shameful how you conducted yourselves here. 

Nah. I get what you're saying, but in the interest of 'fair is fair -- there's no unfairness', the constant wink-knodding to his past had to come up in this series of bannings.

 

I hope that the upthread dup account and sour-grapiness post doesn't discount the last however many years of good membership if/when a re-instatement due to dupiness comes up for the admiral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leave the past in the past, guys. Admiral isn't that same person who joined all those years ago. I get that this is in the rules, but at this point, it feels like you're doing this for the sake of doing it. If the person isn't breaking any rules the 2nd go around besides the whole "dupe to navigate suspension/banhammer" rule, where's the harm in letting them stay? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

*sigh*  Well, this explains why I couldn't like his response in the MLB Uniforms thread.

 

It's pretty simple, and those in power have explained that they felt they had no choice and pretty obviously stated they were planning on making policy decisions to reverse this.  It might have taken a few days to a few weeks, but it would have gotten done.  Any fighting against it would only serve to give evidence to why they shouldn't do it.  All anybody had to do was be calm and let it happen.

 

I hope that the response hasn't colored that decision.  We'll see how it goes.

I just noticed this as I was going to like a response from a (I think) suspended member.  This used to be possible so maybe the change should be named after BucFan, who like about 1,000 Tank posts after his ban.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.