Michael Hardner Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 I'm still trying to figure out if onsite notifications were also not working, as email notification was not working. I can't tell if your note was written with the understanding of the email glitch referred to above or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forum Admin Greg Posted October 22, 2013 Forum Admin Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 I'm still trying to figure out if onsite notifications were also not working, as email notification was not working. Onsite notifications were working, but unless the member explicitly selected the option (to be notified of a warning) in the notifications settings, they would not have recieved anything in messenging or in the notification area. I have overriden any personal preferences, and all members will be notified in the Notification section whenever a warning is issued. The email notification functionality was NOT working, but that functionality has been restored. I also choose to override any individual member preference relating to email notifications too, meaning that any time a warning is issue, the offending member will get an onsite AND a email notification of the infraction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 Very clear, thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 My last two suspensions, I wasn't warned first. I received the warning...but it came WITH the suspension. My first suspension was justified...as was the warning before it. The last two...well....not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 Instead of a bald notification "You're suspended 30 days for insulting the native council of wherever or against Quebecers" or something similar, a warning "Delete your insult against the native council and watch your tone" would have accomplished the same thing in terms of the tone of the board without pissing me off. This is just it. Someone calls my post "ridiculous hyperbole" and I tell them to shut up with their ridiculous hyperbole nonsense then get a suspension for that because it's abusive. Meanwhile, calling someone's posts ridiculous hyperbole and offering nothing of substance to debate the arguments in the post is apparently ok. This is the kind of inconsistency that we're talking about. Was I warned before hand? I guess if getting suspended previously for saying that a poster clearly doesn't believe in the fundamental principles of Civil Law and being told to play the ball going forward is a warning, then yes. I was warned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) My last two suspensions, I wasn't warned first. I received the warning...but it came WITH the suspension. My first suspension was justified...as was the warning before it. The last two...well....not so much. You cannot, by definition, receive a warning and punishment simultaneously. It's like a cop saying "I'm going to let you off with a warning. Here's your ticket." Edited October 23, 2013 by Argus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 This is just it. Someone calls my post "ridiculous hyperbole" and I tell them to shut up with their ridiculous hyperbole nonsense then get a suspension for that because it's abusive. Meanwhile, calling someone's posts ridiculous hyperbole and offering nothing of substance to debate the arguments in the post is apparently ok. Well, first, there is someetimes a fine line between insulting what you said, and insulting you. In this case, they clearly insulted your words, even though you obviously felt insulted by what they said. I don't consider what either of you said to be all that terrible, though, and not really meriting more than a minor warning to watch how you talk to someone. We don't want people resorting to "Shut up!" and "No, you shut up!" after all. Ie, you were in the wrong here but I don't see how a suspension is justified for "shut up". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 I know I was in the wrong. I completely admit that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 Folks, If you have to be warned once, that is OK. If you have to be warned more than once, that is not OK. When I make a global warning in a thread, all members who participate in the discussion thereafter are considered to have been warned. By definition? You cannot, by definition, receive a warning and punishment simultaneously. It's like a cop saying "I'm going to let you off with a warning. Here's your ticket."Yes, that is how it is like --- now. If your ticket was sufficient --- then, you would not need a second one. Many of the people complaining here have been warned SEVERAL times going back over years. You all know the rules. They have been the same for eons. None of you have excuses. Ch. A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) By definition? Yes, that is how it is like --- now. If your ticket was sufficient --- then, you would not need a second one. Many of the people complaining here have been warned SEVERAL times going back over years. You all know the rules. They have been the same for eons. None of you have excuses. No, Charles, actually we don't really. Oftentimes when we write some minor throway line towards a third party we're not thinking that's really against the rules. I was quite surprised to be suspended for calling the incompetent local native council 'dumbasses'. It's not even much of an insult. It's what you call your son for not remembering to take out the garbage. It's like the speed limit is 100 and every day you drive at 115 or so, just like everyone else, and then one day a cop stops you for doing 102 and gives you a ticket. You're like, HUH!? Are you kidding!? And of course it completely ignores that politics can be passionate, and that in the heat of the moment people can write something which they probably shouldn't in response to what someone else wrote. Telling them to take it down or cut it out would likely be just as effective as suspending them for a month. Edited October 23, 2013 by Argus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) And of course it completely ignores that politics can be passionate, and that in the heat of the moment people can write something which they probably shouldn't in response to what someone else wrote. Telling them to take it down or cut it out would likely be just as effective as suspending them for a month. My cell in the Cooler was decorated by Tanya Gyani. It's nice... Edited October 23, 2013 by DogOnPorch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forum Admin Greg Posted October 23, 2013 Forum Admin Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 Oftentimes when we write some minor throway line towards a third party we're not thinking that's really against the rules. I was quite surprised to be suspended for calling the incompetent local native council 'dumbasses'. It's not even much of an insult. It's what you call your son for not remembering to take out the garbage. Not sure how you could be suprised, the forum rules on insults are very clear: Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: play the ball, not the person (i.e. Tackle the argument, not the person making it). People who have a history of antagonistic behaviour will be treated more harshly than those who do not. Insults leveled at third-parties (companies, political parties, nationalities) are also forbidden in the forums. Can you all not see the ridiculousness of your arguments? I am dumbfounded that you think you have a legitimate complaint or argument. When you make a "minor throwaway line" that includes an insult to a member or third-party it is not ok. I can't see in what world calling someone a "dumbasses" can be considered a innocent throwaway line -- did it somehow strengthen your argument? No, it weakened it; it causes your opponents to completely disregard your argument, because you can't make a valid one without resorting to petty insults. I have fixed the communication issue with the warnings - that was a legitimate complaint, as it's not fair if a member is not notified of a warning from the moderators or myself. I have also made it clear that you can request an explanation for any decision made on this forum. I am not, nor is Charles, interested in secretly deleting or manipulating anyones postings or the forum as a whole. No one has ever been suspended or banned for their beliefs, never. I now consider this issue resolved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 It's like the speed limit is 100 and every day you drive at 115 or so, just like everyone else, and then one day a cop stops you for doing 102 and gives you a ticket. You're like, HUH!? Are you kidding!? This is a great analogy. That's exactly what it feels like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 This is a great analogy. That's exactly what it feels like. Let me get you the number of my interior decorator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 If someone commits a minor crime, should they be given a harsh sentence? I think that's the real issue here. Many of us did not even have a clue that we were in danger of being suspended. For example, the second time I was suspended, it was for racist language. I made a very common statement in jest. It was, what am I, black? I didn't even think of the racial undertones. I can see now how that looked, and I attempted to explain things, and got no response. If the moderators were reading the forum, they'd realize that the idea that I'm racist is...well...rather ridiculous. I would have removed the post if asked. I din't even think of it as offensive, and can see how it looked, but...suspending me for 30 days as a result? Seemed rather harsh, in my opinion. That's just one example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 Oh, and my first suspension was justified...on the other hand, it was over the issue of calling someone a troll. That poster was later banned...for trolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 If someone commits a minor crime, should they be given a harsh sentence? I think that's the real issue here. Many of us did not even have a clue that we were in danger of being suspended. I'm really confused here. It seems to me that you missed the discussion about the notifications not working. So you didn't have a clue... because the system wasn't working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 I'm really confused here. It seems to me that you missed the discussion about the notifications not working. So you didn't have a clue... because the system wasn't working. No...I didn't have a clue because I was immediately suspended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forum Admin Greg Posted October 23, 2013 Forum Admin Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 No...I didn't have a clue because I was immediately suspended. You may have been warned previously, but didn't get the warnings - cause the notifications system wasn't working. It's fixed now, so no one has any excuse. Again, this issue is resolved. You can keep posting various analogies and arguments about how you feel slighted by being suspended with or without warning. It won't make any difference at this point, as the error with the IPB forum software has been fixed. You will now be properly notified if you are given a warning and if you are suspended or banned. Keep your comments civil and show everyone respect and you won't ever have to worry about any of these issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 We seem to be going 'round and 'round here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 Well, hopefully in the future things work as they should. I don't like to complain, and I haven't much before this. I want this place to do well as a discussion forum. That's why I brought this up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 And you're a good poster, so I doubt there'll be too many problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 I should note, the VAST majority of the reports are frivolous and are simply ignored by Charles and myself - Charles and I are not stupid; we can tell when someone is trying to manipulate the reporting feature. there is a perception that reporting is being manipulated. It's one that simply reflects upon time constraints limiting the moderator's ability to comprehensively review all threads/all posts. As related, I received a timeout for this post... the image, in particular. The missing background to the moderator is that the same member (and others) made repeated posts (over an assortment of threads), focusing on the physical characteristics of the Liberal leader... most notably, "the hair". So, of course the hair jabs are frivolous, but have a purposeful intent. Apparently, my post went beyond the frivolous level of all the other member posts because I didn't stop with a simple textual comparison to Harper's "helmet hair"... for completeness, I included a most representative image. Apparently, completeness was my downfall! Of course, my perception is that the moderator likely wouldn't have been drawn to the post in question without a report being made. Perception <=> reality..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 Not sure how you could be suprised, the forum rules on insults are very clear:What are the forum rules regarding calling people whiners for asking a simple question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forum Admin Greg Posted October 23, 2013 Forum Admin Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 Well, I've had about enough of this nonsense. Ignore the rules at your own peril. If you do not like the way these forums are moderated or the rules that are clearly outlined, leave. Otherwise for those of you who disagree with me and you choose to flout the rules, you'll be shown the door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts