I bet this one does it!!

[TDM]

LOCK LOCK LOCKETY LOCK!!


What your looking at here folks is what got Kate Banned. Except for the moderator who deleted the post I may be the only other person to have actually seen it. I actually did a reply before it was closed and deleted.

It has been 3 days since Kate was banned for speaking her mind and asking questions of the moderators. Then entire time Kate was actually civiliized. She NEVER swore or become abusive. Just annoying, but thats Kate at times!!

Then we fast forward to 2 nights ago. Spikey was banned for speaking her mind and asking questions of the moderators. Unfortunately Spikey got upset and actually told a few people where they could go. Which is understandeable at times.

Then come forward one more day until last night. We get a Spikey thread. At the present time it is over 200+ entries. People all in support of Spikey being unbanned. All kinds of reason. Popular, needed for fight in NY, helpful, kind, needed, etc.

My question here is we have had threads in the past few days "accusing" moderators of double standards, that they by the way totally deny! So my question to you the moderators and SJ. Why is it that you have 2 people banned for the same thing, 1 becomes unbanned in 1 day (the one in truth who told you to go to ....) and the other who was just annoying the crap out of a mod is still banned 3 days later.

What is it because Kate isn't "needed" as much as Spikey?? She's not as helpful?? If this isn't the proof of double standards I don't know what is!!

If you notice I was very civilized. I tried to be as nice as possible. I even went as far as to PM Spikey to say I was sorry before I posted this. I really didn't want her upset at me.

So if you want to ban me go ahead. I really don't want to be. But, I really don't think it is right for Spikey to be already posting again when Kate was banned the day before Spikey and Kate is still gone.

Well thats my .02 worth so do what you will!!

TDM

 

[Terraphon]

This is Kate's second ban.

Unless SJ reverses it, it stands.

 

[ApOsTle51]

good point TDM.

I don't know if Kate had any pending Infractions before the ban , spikey certainly didn't

Terra, What difference does 2nd ban makes. We've heard each case is disussed individually. I didn't realise you kept a criminal record here ..

 

[TDM]

good point TDM.

I don't know if Kate had any pending Infractions before the ban , spikey certainly didn't

Been nice chatting with ya ApO. Hopefully i'm still around at nitefall.

 

[Terraphon]

good point TDM.

I don't know if Kate had any pending Infractions before the ban , spikey certainly didn't

Terra, What difference does 2nd ban makes. We've heard each case is disussed individually. I didn't realise you kept a criminal record here ..

Discussed individually, yes.

And, like I said, this is SJ's call...All the threads in the world won't change anything unless he, himself, makes the reversal.

 

[ApOsTle51]

hehe , I'll probably miss it anyways..I seem to miss all the fun lately..hehe

 

[TDM]

This is Kate's second ban.

Unless SJ reverses it, it stands.

Yes Terraphon, but Spikey was unbanned because there was not just cause. That comes straight from Spikey that she was unbanned. I admit kate was being annoying like she can be. But it is the same thing.

 

[TDM]

Discussed individually, yes.

And, like I said, this is SJ's call...All the threads in the world won't change anything unless he, himself, makes the reversal.

And you cant contact him. It says mailbox full

 

[Terraphon]

I can not argue this point, here.

This is an issue of policy and, as such, has to be taken up with SJ, per his rules.

 

[Treece]

Annoying a moderator is not the equivalent of abusing a moderator, is it? Kate was asking questions. She was persistent, but that's because she wasn't getting any answers. And her questions were relevant to many of us, so it made sense for her to post them here rather than through a PM.

 

[Space Cowboy]

Ok, I may as well get myself banned here. I don't talk much, so I really don't care. I don't know if I saw the whole Kate thing, but my impression is that the whole thing could have been settled the mod had taken something other than a confrontational approach. If I remember correctly, Kate wanted to know why all the threads about an unmentionable supplier were moved to that suppliers forum where said unsaid supplier could delete anything critical. Some would consider that a fair question.

In another thread, I think it was deleted, someone, I think a moderator, said that the supplier forum is merely a forum of convienience. That is, the unnamed supplier is not a supporting supplier and has no moderator privileges. The forum was just created as a place to throw all the topics about whatever supplier we're talking about.

Maybe if the mod had simply stated that fact, if it is a fact I don't know for sure, this whole mess could have been avoided. But that's not how some, not all, mods want to go about their business. I guess it's more fun to egg someone on and then ban them. And then there are mods, not all by any means, who seem to think that making snide comments in public is appropriate behavior for someone in power.

My perception could be wrong, and I'm not an active member of the forum, so I know my opinion really doesn't matter. But that's just the way this whole situation seems to me.

Don't taze me dude!

 

[ApOsTle51]

ohh look 4 infractions already i guess

Please address your complaints directly to the moderators or SmokeyJoe (admin)

thats from the infraction .not the PM

dunno what complaint that was...

 

[Terraphon]

ohh look 4 infractions already i guess


thats from the infraction .not the PM

dunno what complaint that was...

Again, it's in the text of the message you received.

 

[TDM]

ohh look 4 infractions already i guess


thats from the infraction .not the PM

dunno what complaint that was...

Got em too

 

[dohsma]

How do you know if you have an infraction?

 

[Treece]

You get a PM saying you got an infraction. I just got one, too.

 

[Corki2]

I would personally prefer to have someone take me aside if I've done something wrong rather than call me out in front of everyone. This applies to any situation unless I'm doing something that might kill or hurt myself or others. Is is possible for the mods to handle "infractions" privately through PM's that can be saved and later reviewed by SJ if there is an issue? That seems to be the policy if you have a problem with a decision made my a mod. Can that go both ways?

 

[Corki2]

You get a PM saying you got an infraction. I just got one, too.

Nevermind.

 

[ApOsTle51]

nope ..still don't get it ..there are no complaints in that post....ahh boll0x to it ..this place just get weirder

funny tho..post #2 from a moderator ...but keeps thread open even tho it breaks the rules...serving anyone that posts in it an infraction....

 

[TDM]

I would personally prefer to have someone take me aside if I've done something wrong rather than call me out in front of everyone. This applies to any situation unless I'm doing something that might kill or hurt myself or others. Is is possible for the mods to handle "infractions" privately through PM's that can be saved and later reviewed by SJ if there is an issue? That seems to be the policy if you have a problem with a decision made my a mod. Can that go both ways?

Thats what they do you get a PM saying you have an infraction.

How many infractions until your banned?? Didnt see it in the rules. Maybe that should be in the PM.... you have 1 infraction 3 more your banned