A disappointing announcement: shortkut

[Ben]

Two days ago, shortkut made a post in the Television forum which was reported to me as SPAM. The post had very little to do with the topic at hand (which was 9 months old), and only served to attempt to direct traffic away from the Television forum to a club in C&C.

http://forums.gamewinners.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6761270#post6761270

Upon investigating for myself, and then taking it to the other admins for discussion, we decided that it was borderline SPAM and at the very least worthy of a caution.

Considering that shortkut has recieved two warnings (one for flaming, one for racism) in the past 7 months, as well as the recent name-change he gave to Cluck which was far beyond the character limit we've set, even this caution has brought doubt upon his abilities and position as a super moderator. Myself and the other admins don't feel comfortable allowing him to retain that position when we have even an ounce of doubt regarding his ability to follow the rules.

shortkut is being demoted to moderator. Whether we will ever allow him to go up for another smod vote, and whether we are going to replace him for the remaining two months of this smod term, is still being discussed.

[Dantilus]

Ever heard of the American justice system's 3 strikes rule? Same concept. Defacing money might not be worth a couple years in prison on its own, but if your record's not clean, don't drop the soap.But the idea is that it wasn't even a third strike. It's more like getting arrested for shoplifting twice, then getting arrested a third time just for being in a jewelry store.

[Aphrodite]

But the idea is that it wasn't even a third strike. It's more like getting arrested for shoplifting twice, then getting arrested a third time just for being in a jewelry store.

Indeed. Strict, but entirely possible.

[VashTheStampede]

If you don't favor Cole, he'll b*tch and constantly insult you. The admins honestly don't have time for the b*tching, so they'll just go along with him.

You, sir, have absolutely no knowledge of the relationship between myself and Coleman, apparently.

Even IF Ben and Coleman were joined at the penis, this sort of thing takes more than one administrator's go-ahead.

[Northern Lights]

I knew that was the case anyway, but I may as well state my opinion for the benefit of all the "HAHA VASH GOT YOUZ!1" people.

All of the administrators have made the wrong decision.

[Ben]

Thread split. (http://forums.gamewinners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=504328)

[VashTheStampede]

I knew that was the case anyway, but I may as well state my opinion for the benefit of all the "HAHA VASH GOT YOUZ!1" people.

All of the administrators have made the wrong decision.

If you think it was the wrong decision, that's fine. I just don't like the implication that our intentions were anything but pure, and that's all I'm out to dispel.

[Northern Lights]

If you think it was the wrong decision, that's fine. I just don't like the implication that our intentions were anything but pure, and that's all I'm out to dispel.

Yeah, I understand that. You think that it was a warning. I don't.

I wouldn't have a problem with the de-smodding if I felt the caution/warning was justified. I just don't see how it can be.

[Dantilus]

Indeed. Strict, but entirely possible.If they didn't want him in the store, they shouldn't have let him apply for manager. :-\

[VashTheStampede]

Ugh.

He wasn't a manager. The admins are the managers. He, as an s-mod, was a salesman. He was hired because we were led to believe his kleptomania was cured. Then we saw him eyeing the diamonds with an odd gleam in his eye and decided to demote him back to glass-cleaner.

He was very mature in his reaction to being handed the Windex once again, and next time we have a regional meeting to decide a new salesman, I wouldn't have a problem with him being nominated.

[Barack Obama]

Then we saw him eyeing the diamonds with an odd gleam in his eye and decided to demote him back to glass-cleaner.

I totally thought of Abu in Aladdin, reaching for the ruby, and causing the cave to collapse.

Anyway, shortkut really did nothing wrong. This whole thing is bullsh*t.

[Mayhem]

Then we saw him eyeing the diamonds with an odd gleam in his eye and decided to demote him back to glass-cleaner.

He only eyed it, he never did anything wrong, he shouldn't of gotten demoted for staring at a diamond. Nevertheless polishing it.

[Dantilus]

Ugh.

He wasn't a manager. The admins are the managers.Managers have bosses too, ya know. :tease:

Then we saw him eyeing the diamonds with an odd gleam in his eye and decided to demote him back to glass-cleaner.I'm still not getting what the offense was. It wasn't spam, because his post was pretty damn on-topic. It wasn't advertising, because it was an on-forum link. It wasn't bumping, because he didn't bump it and anybody here would think a five-post thread was made recently. The most I've heard is that "it could have been handled in a PM," but one out of every twenty posts I see (at the very least) "could have" been handled in a PM, so that's just plain terrible policy.

[Ants!]

Then we saw him eyeing the diamonds with an odd gleam in his eyeThat's a crap annalogy. You are talking about someone with a criminal behavior who was scheming to fall back on that again, and comparing it to shortkuts post, which did not break the rules and had no malicious thinking behind it. Unless of course shortkut was actually planning on breaking the rules on purpose and trying to get away with it like your jewel thief is doing.

The admins should really swallow their pride here and just admit that they were and are wrong. Kut did not break the rules, and you know it.

[Mayhem]

Ants! is right, I beleive the Admins have made a mistake in demoting shortkut, I always saw him help with his witty comments. Demoting him due to such small infraction is not only a mistake and injustice. He has been a Mod and Super Mod for how long? He helped out for How long? Why demoted him after so many years of service to the forums.

[Aphrodite]

I'm still not getting what the offense was. It wasn't spam, because his post was pretty damn on-topic.

That's not up to you. Or any of you.

The only people in this thread who can decide that are the admins, and... well, Coleman.

The failures of members to understand the rules as written has never been a defense.

[Shadow.]

The admins should really swallow their pride here and just admit that they were and are wrong. Kut did not break the rules, and you know it.
Why swallow their prides if they think they're right?

[Lazy F*ck]

The failures of members to understand the rules as written has never been a defense.
I think the members understand the rules perfectly. Which is why we're against shortkut's demodding.

[Aphrodite]

I think the members understand the rules perfectly. Which is why we're against shortkut's demodding.

If you're against it, you do not. It... really is that simple.

If the admins say something happens some way, that's the rule(s). At best you can argue it is unfair, but it is absolutely within the rules.

[SlowMotionJones]

I think the members understand the rules perfectly. Which is why we're against shortkut's demodding.
I agree with this, to a certain extent. Obviously calling for warnings etc. based on the rules is at the moderators/admins discretion, but it seems like the rules are based too much on someone's discretion. Obviously it'd be too hard to document every case of SPAM and what breaks that rule, but I'd say a fair bit of interpretation occurred to link the definition of SPAM with what occurred.

I'm not asking to be spoonfed, but maybe clearer rules would help. Saying "Because the admins say so" is all well and good, so long as the written rules at least reflect what they're saying.

[Lazy F*ck]

If you're against it, you do not. It... really is that simple.

If the admins say something happens some way, that's the rule(s). At best you can argue it is unfair, but it is absolutely within the rules.
Let's go over the rules, as written.

1. No SPAM. SPAM is posting just for the sake of raising your post count or posting something that is not relevant to the topic at hand. This includes one word replies (where not appropriate), a totally off-topic post or thread, and bumping dead topics. In addition, if you have something to personal (ie: Where have you been?) to another member use the PM function or it will be considered SPAM.
Shortkut's post was neither a one word reply, a dead thread bump, or off topic. It was actually very on topic. The thread was about the Sci-Fi channel. The thread starter also mentions Stargate, which, get ready for this, is on the Sci-Fi channel. The thread starter expressed his like for Stargate, so kut offered him a place to go to talk about it. He was helping a member, for god's sake.

The only thing he's guilty of is not looking at the date the thread was posted. Which doesn't really matter anyway, since he didn't bump the thread.

I'm not trying to, like, attack the administration or anything, and I'm not trying to say they're incompetent. I'm saying that they're actions contradict the actual rules. They made a mistake, and they should rectify it.

[Ants!]

If the admins say something happens some way, that's the rule(s). At best you can argue it is unfair, but it is absolutely within the rules.And according to the rules as they were written, he did not break any with that post.

[Aphrodite]

And according to the rules as they were written, he did not break any with that post.

Sure he did:

In addition, if you have something personal to say (i.e.: Where have you been?) to another member use the PM function or it will be considered SPAM.

Nobody else in that thread cared about Stargate.

Let's go over the rules, as written.


Shortkut's post was neither a one word reply, a dead thread bump, or off topic. It was actually very on topic.

I like how you stop before the part he broke.

[Lazy F*ck]

Nobody else in that thread cared about Stargate.
How does that even matter? The thread's topic was Stargate. Shortkut contributed to the thread. Simple, most would think.

I like how you stop before the part he broke.
I didn't include the message part because I thought it was obvious it pertain to kut's post.

EDIT: "it didn't pertain..."

[Ants!]

Kut's post was far from just a "Hey how are you?" He knew they guy would not be able to garner any discussion of that show in that forum, so he redirected him to where there are other members who care about it. It could have been put in a PM, but then it's been mentioned before how there has been several attempts to discuss that show in the television forum throughout that forums lifetime, and each time those threads were lucky to get a handful of responses before they died. So anyone else who sees that topic in the future could, instead of bumping it yet again can follow the link. It's not the same thing as just a plain ol' "Hey I haven't seen you on the forums in a while" post. He could have worded it differently and said something like "I like SG-1 also, but nobody else in this forum likes it. There is a club for it though where we talk about it all the time. You'll have better luck there", and if he did it would not have been called spam, even though he was saying the exact same thing. It's like what has already been said in this forum: just because a co-mod needs everything spelled out for him doesn't make it spam.

[Aphrodite]

How does that even matter? The thread's topic was Stargate. Shortkut contributed to the thread. Simple, most would think.

No, the thread's topic was the SciFi channel, and the X-Files. Stargate had been mentioned as a favorite by the original poster, but the actual questions asked were regarding the channel itself, and the X-Files. The topic was not about Stargate. SciFi channel. See where kut mentioned SciFi? No, because he did not. See where he helped the topic's poster with the query about the X-Files? No, because he did not.

If someone asked what you thought about... say, the Playstation 2. They list a couple of their favorite games, among them a Final Fantasy game. Should you then try to get them to join your Final Fantasy club, you are spamming. There is precedent for this, it happens all the time. This situation is not special.

The topic was not about Stargate.

[Ants!]

But then another poster comes along and wants to talk about Final Fantasy, but he is out of luck because no one else in that forum wants to talk about it other than him. Then somebody says "Hey, if you want to find other people who like Final Fantasy, there is a club for it".

[Aphrodite]

But then another poster comes along and wants to talk about Final Fantasy, but he is out of luck because no one else in that forum wants to talk about it other than him. Then somebody says "Hey, if you want to find other people who like Final Fantasy, there is a club for it".

But unless it is in a thread dedicated to Final Fantasy, it's still spam.

It can be let go, sure... It often is. However, by no means does that mean it's not against the rules. Higher standards for super moderators.

[Dantilus]

That's not up to you. Or any of you.

The only people in this thread who can decide that are the admins, and... well, Coleman.I don't have the right to reverse it, no, but to imply that I'm not allowed to protest, or that the admins are above any and all reproach, is just goddamn silly.

I don't mind at all if we come to an honest disagreement: in the end, the admins will of course have the final say no matter what happens, because that's their job, not mine. What I don't like is the idea pervading this thread that admin decisions are inherently right simply because they are admin decisions and that protesting them is pointless. That's bullsh*t.

EDIT:
If someone asked what you thought about... say, the Playstation 2. They list a couple of their favorite games, among them a Final Fantasy game. Should you then try to get them to join your Final Fantasy club, you are spamming. There is precedent for this, it happens all the time. This situation is not special.Thank you.

I'd still say I disagree, overall, but I'm at least seeing more logic in it than anyone else has explained, even if I believe it to be mindless logic. I'll leave now.

[Ants!]

You said somebody starts a topic asking about the playstation 2 and about their favorite games, one of them being Final Fantasy. From there, the topic ends up being about Final Fantasy. How is that not on topic? You keep harping on how the topic was about Sci-fi, but get this: Stargate is Sci-fi. That means it is included in the topic. You can't start a topic about quadrilaterals and then say that I am getting off-topic when we start talking about trapezoids.

And no one is saying that it's not against the rules because it can be let go, we are saying that it is not against the rules because it is not against the rules.

[Aphrodite]

You said somebody starts a topic asking about the playstation 2 and about their favorite games, one of them being Final Fantasy. From there, the topic ends up being about Final Fantasy. How is that not on topic?

The original poster by no means requested information or opinions on Final Fantasy, just like the original poster didn't request anything about Stargate. If the topic ends up Final Fantasy, it means someone spammed.

You keep harping on how the topic was about Sci-fi, but get this: Stargate is Sci-fi. That means it is included in the topic. You can't start a topic about quadrilaterals and then say that I am getting off-topic when we start talking about trapezoids.

The topic was about the SciFi Channel. A specific entity that happens to share part of its name with a genre. That does not, however, mean the topic was about SciFi as a whole.



... Did you even read the topic?

[Schteve]

I like how you stop before the part he broke.And I like how everyone keeps harping on his Television post, when really, that was the least severe of his infractions.



What I don't like is the idea pervading this thread that admin decisions are inherently right simply because they are admin decisions and that protesting them is pointless. That's bullsh*t.Well, their decisions are the rules by definition. Of course, they welcome any such disagreements you or anyone else may have with their decisions, and just because they don't change their minds when presented with half-baked logic doesn't mean they aren't listening to every word you're saying.

[Lazy F*ck]

No, the thread's topic was the SciFi channel,
The thread starter also mentions Stargate, which, get ready for this, is on the Sci-Fi channel.
Stargate is on the Sci-Fi channel. Some guy started talking about Ghost Hunters, but didn't get warned for spam. Why? Because he was on topic. Some guy talked about ECW and didn't get warned. Why? Because he was on topic.

Kinda like that Shortkut guy. Except he got warned for apparently no good reason.

Excuse me, not warned, cautioned.

[Aphrodite]

Yep, that shortkut guy with the history of reckless and rulebreaking behaviour.

The other people broke the rules in the past. They could have been warned back then, but it was missed. They can't be warned now for spam that was not noticed at the time.

The ECW guy got warned for the larger violation of thread bumping, but warned nonetheless.

shortkut was demoted for being, in the eyes of the administrators, a bad smod. This was simply the final example.

Hell, if he wasn't demoted for this there's a little exchange he'd have been demoted for that happened recently. His attitude is unbefitting the position.

[Coleman]

I'm sure it was noticed, but I decided to remove myself from this thread some time ago. It's fairly ridiculous for me to defend the actions, as no views of anyone partaking in this thread are going to change. So I'm not going to defend what I, as well as apparently the administration, feel was a just move. However, there is definitley one thing that need to be clarified.

Stargate is on the Sci-Fi channel. Some guy started talking about Ghost Hunters, but didn't get warned for spam. Why? Because he was on topic. Some guy talked about ECW and didn't get warned. Why? Because he was on topic.The other people broke the rules in the past. They could have been warned back then, but it was missed. They can't be warned now for spam that was not noticed at the time.Those posts weren't broken rules by any stretch of the imagination. The final question in the thread was about the X-Files, however, the FIRST question in the thread:

Thoughts on the station with the best ads for itself?Was asking for opinions on the channel. Which, in turn, would include shows those people like. It would appear as though none of them could answer the X-Files question, or never saw it. But their posts were ABSOLUTLEY on topic as they answered the initial question.

However shortkut did not. He didn't comment on what he thought of the Sci-Fi network. He didn't comment on his favorite shows of the Sci-Fi network. And he didn't comment on when the X-Files would return to the station. He simply linked to a comment that was relevant only in an extremely obscure way.

[canadaguy]

Hell, if he wasn't demoted for this there's a little exchange he'd have been demoted for that happened recently. His attitude is unbefitting the position.


Now that is just being silly. How can anyone say within any reasonable accuracy what would happen if something else didn't?






And the point is, even if the admins word is law, by their own decree mind you, I can still say that I think the law is wrong.

[Lazy F*ck]

The guy says his favorite shows on the Sci-Fi channel are Stargate and the X-Files. Shortkut responded by pointing him towards one of his favorite shows on the Sci-Fi channel, which was Stargate, which is on the Sci-Fi channel, which was the topic. Shortkut was on topic. He was talking about Stargate. Which is on the channel. Which was the topic.

Does anyone at least see where I'm coming from? Besides those who agree, I mean?

[Aphrodite]

Now that is just being silly. How can anyone say within any reasonable accuracy what would happen if something else didn't?

Did you see it? If he pulled it as an smod and wasn't, that would be bias.

The guy says his favorite shows on the Sci-Fi channel are Stargate and the X-Files. Shortkut responded by pointing him towards one of his favorite shows on the Sci-Fi channel, which was Stargate, which is on the Sci-Fi channel, which was the topic. Shortkut was on topic. He was talking about Stargate. Which is on the channel. Which was the topic.

Does anyone at least see where I'm coming from? Besides those who agree, I mean?

I know what you're trying to say, that's just not how the rule works.

[Coleman]

Does anyone at least see where I'm coming from? Besides those who agree, I mean?I absolutley see what you're trying to say. And I say with respect, your opinion is wrong. As I said in a number of posts before this. It was ARGUABLY on topic. It was on topic by ASSOCIATION. But it was NOT on topic in the SPIRIT of the thread.

As Kat said, the thread was NOT about Stargate. Stargate was mentioned but the thread was not ABOUT Stargate. If kut had said something like, "I like Sci-Fi, I watch Stargate SG-1, and Stargate Atlantas. We even set up a clan in another forum, here's the link." I probably wouldn't have given it a second thought. But he didn't. He SIMPLY linked to the clan. Said "Oh, you like that? Well go here!" and nothing more.

[canadaguy]

Did you see it? If he pulled it as an smod and wasn't, that would be bias.


Well I honestly have no clue what you are refering to, however, I am saying, how do we know it would have even happened if they still let him be an Smod?

[VashTheStampede]

That's a crap annalogy. You are talking about someone with a criminal behavior BLAH BLAH BLAH

Yeah, that was the point of the entire post...to point out that using the analogy was ridiculous and could be twisted to benefit anyone's point of view.

ABUHDURRRRRRRR

[Lazy F*ck]

I absolutley see what you're trying to say. And I say with respect, your opinion is wrong.
And I respectfuly disagree with you 100%.

I can see now that this isn't going to get anywhere, since it's more about one's interpretation than anything. Let me just point out one more thing as a reason why I think it was on topic and in the spirit of the thread, or whatever.

See, I see the post as on topic anyway, but what also enforces that opinion is that he used the word "we". "Don't worrry about RPing, we haven't done any, etc". "We" as in he's a member of the clan. If he's a member of the clan, he likes Stargate. If he had said "they", or had left that sentence out completely, then I might be more inclined to agree with, er, everyone. I wouldn't, but I'd be more inclined. :D

And Stargate was part of the topic. I think I might repeat myself, but the guy asked what people thought of the Sci-Fi channel and mentioned Stargate as one of his favorite shows. Stargate is on the Sci-Fi channel. You said yourself, Coleman, that if he had posted "I like Stargate, etc" then it would've been fine. I see it as that's exactly what kut did.

But that, it seeems, is where interpretation and discretion come in. I think it was interpreted in the wrong way.

But that, it seems, is where rank comes in...

[Coleman]

See, I see the post as on topic anyway, but what also enforces that opinion is that he used the word "we". "Don't worrry about RPing, we haven't done any, etc". "We" as in he's a member of the clan. If he's a member of the clan, he likes Stargate. If he had said "they", or had left that sentence out completely, then I might be more inclined to agree with, er, everyone. I wouldn't, but I'd be more inclined.Having kut be a part of the clan is probably worse than if he wasn't. That's closer to advertising for personal gain, rather than just "advertising to spread activity".

And Stargate was part of the topic. I think I might repeat myself, but the guy asked what people thought of the Sci-Fi channel and mentioned Stargate as one of his favorite shows. Stargate is on the Sci-Fi channel.Stargate was NOT part of the topic, it was a BYPRODUCT of the topic. The topic was the Sci-Fi channel, and SPECIFICALLY X-Files. Stargate was merely MENTIONED. My original example of the color thing, Kats Playstation/Final Fantasy thing were both trying to illustrate that. Stargate was NOT a part of the topic, just a side effect from it.

You said yourself, Coleman, that if he had posted "I like Stargate, etc" then it would've been fine. I see it as that's exactly what kut did.Show me where he said anything close to "I like Stargate". Just because he's in the clan doesn't mean he likes it. Tom and Eric made me join the Football clan in C+C, I don't remember the last time I watched a football game. Sure, kut probably does like it, but the fact of the matter is, he didn't take the five seconds it would've taken to say that. He simply linked to it. Saying "that is exactly what he did" is a very...twisted way of looking at it just to make this situation "worse" than it really is. Which was simply someone finally breaking the camels back.

[Northern Lights]

And I like how everyone keeps harping on his Television post, when really, that was the least severe of his infractions.


What do you want us to say?

Damn, Erik may have been racist, but it is their fault for being from a different race.

The Television post is the only one, as far as I'm aware, that didn't deserve a warning.

The racist comment was in CnS. We can't view that.

And yeah, I don't remember what the other one was for.


His attitude is unbefitting the position.

Helpful. Funny. Easy to approach.

Yeah, I see what you mean. In fact, why the hell did they vote for him in the first place?

[Aphrodite]

Members always think they know everything...

There are some people who are different away from the more public eye.

[Tom]

If someone asked what you thought about... say, the Playstation 2. They list a couple of their favorite games, among them a Final Fantasy game. Should you then try to get them to join your Final Fantasy club, you are spamming. There is precedent for this, it happens all the time. This situation is not special.

The topic was not about Stargate.

The above is an interpretation of the rules. First one from the side I disagree with that has actually made me think, 'hmm, yeah, I see how that works'. There are others, but the interpretation of the rules which the current admins apply are the ones that happen. It has to be like that even if the consequences aren't always rosy. The way the moderators interpret the rules vary, due to the sheer number of different personalities, thus why moderator discretion has to be allowed for. However, the admins between them keep a generally consistant outlook on the rules between them. Harsh, in my own opinion, hence my vigorous protests in this and other threads. Better consistantly strict than sloppily easy-going, though, I guess.

Ultimately, the S-mods need to continue this consistancy, as they too are 'upper staff' presiding over the entire site rather than just one or two forums. I can actually see Kat's reasoning on the voting being a bad idea now. The admins need to appoint people who see in line with them. This leaves them open to allegations of favouritism, but if they're picking people who see in line with them, chances are they'll be people they like, I guess.

So: what I'm saying is, though I still disagree with Erik's desmodding from my own point of view, if he is breaking rules and not applying the rules 'in line' with the way the admins see them, it isn't going to work. I'm not saying we shouldn't complain (lord no! It's my speciality) because the admins can get things wrong like other people and can be swayed with logical argument if it's appropriate. When, as in this case, however, it's boiled down to interpretation, and members of the upper staff have re-iterated their positions in spite of the arguments against it, it's done. Sorted. Nothing is going to budge, and if it did it might do more harm than good long-term.




This doesn't sound like me at all, does it? It's an epiphany of sorts. :D

[Lazy F*ck]

Stargate was NOT part of the topic
Depends on how you look at it. Like I said, I can see now that it's all interpretation. I, and others, interpret it differently than you or the admins.

[Coleman]

I honestly don't see how that's subject to interpretation. Stargate was MENTIONED, that doesn't mean it was a subject of the topic.

If someone posted in this thread, and simply talked about the latest episode of Stargate, I would hope they would get a warning or at least a caution. But under your rules, they shouldn't, becuase Stargate was mentioned, it apparently gives them licenese to talk about it.

[Tom]

I honestly don't see how that's subject to interpretation. Stargate was MENTIONED, that doesn't mean it was a subject of the topic.
That's how topics roll sometimes. If someone says something you agree with, or want to talk to them about, it's just how conversation goes. It just usually takes about 3 posts for the topic to change that much in gradual steps instead of 1.

The fact that it is a matter of interpretation should be evident from the larger-than-usual number of protesters.

[shortkut]

quick question, not trying to change, start, or influence anything, but are byproducts not how threads evolve?

[Ants!]

I'm not so sure that having uppermanagement filled with like-minded individuals is such a good idea. I mean, just look at console combat. Until recently it was modded by four people who either are or sound a lot like Xbox fanboys. There's a little something called objectivity, guys. It's how our justice system works. It's why trials have both a prosecutor AND a defense attorney. It's how you can better make sure that mistakes like unjust punishments don't happen.

I honestly don't see how that's subject to interpretation. Stargate was MENTIONED, that doesn't mean it was a subject of the topic.

If someone posted in this thread, and simply talked about the latest episode of Stargate, I would hope they would get a warning or at least a caution. But under your rules, they shouldn't, becuase Stargate was mentioned, it apparently gives them licenese to talk about it.I recall earlier in this thread how somebody called you on the same thing, and you retorted with "Hey! Sometimes threads evolve!"

[Coleman]

EvolvingGeneral topics evolve. Topics that are about a specific thing, or ask a specific question have no need to evolve. It's not like any forum on this website is so over run with activity that a seperate thread can't be made. The thread in question asked two specific questions, neither of which were addressed by shortkut. And the fact of the matter is, he didn't even bring up something about Stargate, or try to start a discussion about Stargate, he tried to send people to ANOTHER forum to talk about Stargate. Something that could've been quite easily achieved by PM.

There's a big difference between a general thread evolving and bringing into discussion of other things, and a thread about something specific changing into something entirely different.

[Tom]

I'm not so sure that having uppermanagement filled with like-minded individuals is such a good idea. I mean, just look at console combat. Until recently it was modded by four people who either are or sound a lot like Xbox fanboys. There's a little something called objectivity, guys. It's how our justice system works. It's why trials have both a prosecutor AND a defense attorney. It's how you can better make sure that mistakes like unjust punishments don't happen.

Ideally things would be a democracy, but this is essentially closer to a business that the running of a country. It wouldn't work.

[Lazy F*ck]

I honestly don't see how that's subject to interpretation. Stargate was MENTIONED, that doesn't mean it was a subject of the topic.

If someone posted in this thread, and simply talked about the latest episode of Stargate, I would hope they would get a warning or at least a caution. But under your rules, they shouldn't, becuase Stargate was mentioned, it apparently gives them licenese to talk about it.
Under my rules, a thread would progress just like any other.

I'll say it again: The thread is about the Sci-Fi channel. If somebody wants to talk about Stargate, go ahead. Because the topic is the f*cking Sci-Fi channel, which encompasses Stargate and all other shows.

You don't agree because that's how you interpret the rules. And your interpretation, by my interpretation, is the wrong interpretation. Savvy?

[Tom]

General topics evolve. Topics that are about a specific thing, or ask a specific question have no need to evolve. It's not like any forum on this website is so over run with activity that a seperate thread can't be made. The thread in question asked two specific questions, neither of which were addressed by shortkut. And the fact of the matter is, he didn't even bring up something about Stargate, or try to start a discussion about Stargate, he tried to send people to ANOTHER forum to talk about Stargate. Something that could've been quite easily achieved by PM.

If a first post asks a specific question, replies not dealing with it are SPAM? That doesn't sound PARTICULARLY unreasonable, actually, but it doesn't seem to be how things have been done in the past. If that's how things are, it being in the rules would be nice. Cultivating a more relaxed atmosphere makes for a happier community, though.

[Coleman]

The thread is about the Sci-Fi channel. If somebody wants to talk about Stargate, go ahead. Because the topic is the f*cking Sci-Fi channel, which encompasses Stargate and all other shows.That's not interpretation, that's spin.

But since you guys insist on repeating everything you and others have said. Making me repeat everything I and others have said. I'm gonna go back to reading and not responding. As I said to start with, you guys are going to see drama and politics were there aren't none. And the people that made or defended the call are going to see legitamacy and arguments for the sake of arguments.

I refuse to sit here and just keep repeating myself and repeating what Kat and others have said. So, have a fun time doing that.

[Tom]

That's not interpretation, that's spin.
Spin is, by definition, interpreting the same facts in a different way. It's just the same word with negative connotations attached to it.

[Lazy F*ck]

That's not interpretation, that's spin.
You're not repeating yourself, that's the first time I've seen this.

Spin?

*Read's Tom's post*

Oh, so then you're actually agreeing with me? Alrighty.

[shortkut]

cole, i challenge you to find 10 threads with very specific topics like the one in the thread that have not evolved because they were not a general topic. the specificity of a thread's topic does not make it immune from evolving. i am not trying to justify my actions, just showing you that your broad generalization is wrong.

and while you're looking for those threads, deal with the 3 or so threads that at least an 11 day bump :wink:

[Ants!]

First off, let's look at the first post, shall we?Thoughts on the station with the best ads for itself? =^.^= I've always loved the bizarre things they do, like the girl who pricks her finger on a flower and then explodes into water droplets.

Then, of course, my favorites shows they have are Stargate SG-1 and The X-Files, on weekdays. Too bad they haven't been showing X-Files lately, does anyone know if they'll be starting it back up after the holidays?Hmm...sounds like the guy is not too good at getting his thoughts together. It's not really clear WHAT he wants the thread to be about, is it? He ask about funny ads, so that could be the topic. Then he goes on to list his favorite shows, so that could be the topic as well. Then at the end he tacks on a question about X-Files, seemingly as an afterthought. Of all those things, that sounds the least likely to be the topic to me. Yet you keep clinging to it like a talisman. By the way you seem to view this, posting ANYTHING in this thread could count as spam unless they address all three topics. Does this sound like a specific topic (one that can't evolve), or a general one (one that can)? The answer is painfully obvious.

Second, let's look at the activity the thread got once it was made. The guy got two posts that hardly said anything, and that was it. After it got bumped, luckily Kut was there to point the guy to where he could find A LOT more activity about one of the topics he mentioned in the first post.

[Northern Lights]

That's not interpretation, that's spin.

So is, shortkut is relating to the subject, but considering he advertised, that makes it SPAM.

But since you guys insist on repeating everything you and others have said. Making me repeat everything I and others have said. I'm gonna go back to reading and not responding.

Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. You get taught that at a young age.

As I said to start with, you guys are going to see drama and politics were there aren't none. And the people that made or defended the call are going to see legitamacy and arguments for the sake of arguments.

No, arguing for the sake of arguing would be "shorkut has been de-smodded for trying to hack the site" and a reply of "Yeah, but he could have been drunk, or he could have done it accidentally, etc." This has a basis.

I refuse to sit here and just keep repeating myself and repeating what Kat and others have said. So, have a fun time doing that.

Thanks for the heads-up. I'm willing to bet that you will be back at some point, though.

I should be a lawyer, I know.

[Schteve]

What do you want us to say?You could always go with "I know how to read and comprehend words. Sucks to see Erik go, anyway."



The Television post is the only one, as far as I'm aware, that didn't deserve a warning.Oh then you must agree the action taken was appropriate. Glad we have that settled.

[Northern Lights]

You could always go with "I know how to read and comprehend words. Sucks to see Erik go, anyway."

Yeah, but that would be giving in to the bullsh*t.


Oh then you must agree the action taken was appropriate. Glad we have that settled.

It is sad to see a smod that can't read the whole topic, understand the three strikes and you're out part and then reply sensibly. Good try, though.

[shortkut]

Yeah, but that would be giving in to the bullsh*t.



It is sad to see a smod that can't read the whole topic, understand the three strikes and you're out part and then reply sensibly. Good try, though.
he understands the 3 strikes better than you

[Schteve]

Yeah, but that would be giving in to the bullsh*t.Actually, that would be NOT replying with bullsh*t.



It is sad to see a smod that can't read the whole topic, understand the three strikes and you're out part and then reply sensibly. Good try, though.First of all, there is no three strikes policy. Don't make things up. Mods have been demodded for two infractions, let alone smods. Everything's handled on a case by case basis. And secondly, even if there was such a rule, this was his fourth, so even you must agree something should have been done beforehand.

[Lazy F*ck]

You could always go with "I know how to read and comprehend words. Sucks to see Erik go, anyway."
Or we could, you know, disagree because it doesn't make sense.

Sucks to see Erik go, anyway. :(

[Ants!]

And secondly, even if there was such a rule, this was his fourth, so even you must agree something should have been done beforehand.So suddenly there is a fourth waring that was there this whole time and you guys neglected to tell us about? We were told that there were only two warnings before he became an smod, and then that this would make three (see Coles conversation with Ben via text). The reason we're only focusing on this one is not only because it is the only one that the rest of us can see what really happened (since the other two happened in the mod forum), and it is the one that happens to be bullsh*t. Also, it is the one that got him de-smodded, or like you all like to say "the straw that broke the camels back". That saying that keeps getting used would make sense if there were a straw, but there was not. No straw existed, so if the back wasn't broken before he was allowed to be an smod, it shouldn't be broken now because there was no straw. This just sounds like the admins and their lackeys were looking for any excuse, however vague and farfetched it might be, to reverse that decision.

And it's been said that his post being on topic is only because of a loophole, by some stretch of the imagination? By spin? No. The loophole was the accusation of rule-breaking. You are the guys coming up with half-baked excuses that don't even hold up under scrutiny!

[shortkut]

(since the other two happened in the mod forum)
my first, and what i thought would be my only one happened in C&C, and its the only one i am proud of :link:... proud is definitely not the right word to describe it :whatever:

[Schteve]

So suddenly there is a fourth waring that was there this whole time and you guys neglected to tell us about?Reading the first post of a thread helps, you know:


Considering that shortkut has recieved two warnings (one for flaming, one for racism) in the past 7 months, as well as the recent name-change he gave to Cluck which was far beyond the character limit we've set, even this caution has brought doubt upon his abilities and position as a super moderator.

[Aphrodite]

So suddenly there is a fourth waring that was there this whole time and you guys neglected to tell us about? We were told that there were only two warnings before he became an smod, and then that this would make three (see Coles conversation with Ben via text). The reason we're only focusing on this one is not only because it is the only one that the rest of us can see what really happened (since the other two happened in the mod forum), and it is the one that happens to be bullsh*t. Also, it is the one that got him de-smodded, or like you all like to say "the straw that broke the camels back". That saying that keeps getting used would make sense if there were a straw, but there was not. No straw existed, so if the back wasn't broken before he was allowed to be an smod, it shouldn't be broken now because there was no straw. This just sounds like the admins and their lackeys were looking for any excuse, however vague and farfetched it might be, to reverse that decision.

I agree with Ants, we should have never given kut the chance.

Thanks for suggesting it, but hindsight is 20/20.

[Ants!]

Finally we agree. If your reason for desmodding him was for the warnings before he was given the possition, then you should never have given the okay to make him an smod. But he WAS made an smod, and then had it taken away for those two warnings (plus one that happened afterwards that was wrongly given).

[shortkut]

(plus one that happened afterwards that was wrongly given).
technically i only received caution(s) after my promotion, no warnings

[Steven]

Reading the first post of a thread helps, you know:
The mentioning of the name change wasn't defined as a caution in the first post, so clarification might've prevented that from coming up.

.
Dot!

~EDIT~

Damn it, I forgot to attach the rest of my post.


Nobody else in that thread cared about Stargate.
No visible person, anyway. That's like saying how in a topic about different flavored pop, no poster cares to have food to go along with it. I'm sure people do. Different scenario, but I thought I might point that out.

Yep, that shortkut guy with the history of reckless and rulebreaking behaviour.
If I remember correctly, Blind Guardian himself broke (a) rule(s) before he ended up as an adminstrator. George W. Bush had a reckless drinking behavior, but look at where he's at. History deals with the past, and sometimes, things change.

ABUHDURRRRRRRR
Yay.

Helpful. Funny. Easy to approach.

Yeah, I see what you mean. In fact, why the hell did they vote for him in the first place?
The other moderators were bribed with cookies.

Members always think they know everything...
Awesome, we have a stereotyping description now.

This doesn't sound like me at all, does it? It's an epiphany of sorts. :D
shortkut gave you cookies, didn't he? :(

I recall earlier in this thread how somebody called you on the same thing, and you retorted with "Hey! Sometimes threads evolve!"
Hallo.

There's a big difference between a general thread evolving and bringing into discussion of other things, and a thread about something specific changing into something entirely different.
I still don't quite see how talking about how you and Blind Guardian are friends and don't always talk about GameWinners was on topic, but if you could break that specific post down for me to show me its relevance to the topic, I'd apprecia- owait ur naht shouwing up nemore whoops my badd lolz...

It is sad to see a smod that can't read the whole topic, understand the three strikes and you're out part and then reply sensibly. Good try, though.
I only had two. :(

my first, and what i thought would be my only one happened in C&C, and its the only one i am proud of :link:
I'm proud of my 50 straight posts in CnS, but Tommy was obviously not thrilled. :( owaitleeek

[Aphrodite]

No visible person, anyway. That's like saying how in a topic about different flavored pop, no poster cares to have food to go along with it. I'm sure people do. Different scenario, but I thought I might point that out.

They don't matter :^:

[Steven]

They don't matter :^:
Well I never said they did matter, I just wanted to jump on the bandwagon of facts that won't influence a change that wasn't gonna occur anyway.

Yay me. :^:

[shortkut]

won't influence a change that wasn't gonna occur anyway.
finally people get it.

i've hinted at this a few times and might have outright said it too, but i guess in the same way i should have spelled out i like stargate i should have spelt out that it is ok for people to drop it. i appreciate people coming to my defense and all, but you should have noticed that i was not fighting it. if everyone defending me was reading the thread carefully, then they would have noticed that the most important post was by vash when he said he wouldn't object if i were nominated again. whether i would accept or not i don't know, but what's done is done, and no amount of posting will fix that... unless it is by Al and i think it might be better for everyone if he is not involved.

[Steven]

finally people get it.

i've hinted at this a few times and might have outright said it too, but i guess in the same way i should have spelled out i like stargate i should have spelt out that it is ok for people to drop it. i appreciate people coming to my defense and all, but you should have noticed that i was not fighting it. if everyone defending me was reading the thread carefully, then they would have noticed that the most important post was by vash when he said he wouldn't object if i were nominated again. whether i would accept or not i don't know, but what's done is done, and no amount of posting will fix that... unless it is by Al and i think it might be better for everyone if he is not involved.
I've understood the whole time, and I'm sure plenty of people have, but people will always argue. That will never change. Just like your demotion.

Only thing that really irked me is how one could interpret your post about the Stargate club thing compared to Cole and his buddy-buddy post. That's just me, though, I may be overlooking something blatantly obvious, in which case I'm human enough to admit I was wrong. I need proof, though.

[Ants!]

Believe me kut, I don't think that any of us really saw any hope in the admins admitting a mistake and re-smodding you. Even though they've ruled with an iron fist on this, we still have to say something because you can't let an injustice go by unchallenged, even if their is no hope.

I guess that is a little too dramatic, though. Anyway, I for one have had my say and am ready to give it a rest.

[Lazy F*ck]

I tried to give it a rest several posts ago, but I was still disagreed with. =(

But yeah, I just wanted to get my idea across. I knew it wouldn't do too much good, but there's no reason not to try.

[Bandicoot]

I've really skimmed this thread so apologies - I will take exile from the thread as penance if it's all covered ground.

first, the warnings. doosh? is that even insulting? I suppose it depends in the context it was used. Racisim? In all fairness, that should have been enough to prevent him becomming a Super Moderator in the first place. and linking to another thread/forum (Is that right? Or was it to a different site?) - where's the harm in that? And in either case, isn't it about helping out others?

second, whatever happened to the comradeship in the mod team? Especially in the upper ranks. you all know that 'kut's a decent enough guy and put a lot of time into these forums.

Anyway, the problem with my point of view, is that I don't even know if there is a loop anymore, let alone to be in one. Therefore my views on rulings may be ancient, by knowledge of events leading up to this is zilch, and I still say that the most relevent thing by far is the racisim, and it should have been taken into greater consideration when 'kut was up for smodship.


IMO the rules might have gotton complex and mangled over the years. I think most of all but the basic necessities should be striped out of the rulebook,but don't tell the members (though I know what the chances are of that). Then you'd have great fun watching people probe the unknown bounderies, and you can implement new rules as and when. I mean, it's not been cleaned out for 6 years, probably.

edit: read 'kuts last post. do not feel obliged to reply to this.

[VashTheStampede]

Then you'd have great fun watching people probe the unknown bounderies, and you can implement new rules as and when.

...and then be accused of power abuse and catcalled for somewhat unpopular decisions on an even MORE regular basis! Great success!

Believe me kut, I don't think that any of us really saw any hope in the admins admitting a mistake and re-smodding you.

Admitting a mistake? Rather presumptuous of you to think that YOU'RE on the right side of this, just because you're on the more vocal side.

[Steven]

...and then be accused of power abuse and catcalled for somewhat unpopular decisions on an even MORE regular basis! Great success!
I don't think it's really possible to be called on it anymore, Vashiepoo. I hate you, you power abuser, you. :kiss:

Rather presumptuous of you to think that YOU'RE on the right side of this, just because you're on the more vocal side.
Insert Kat's stereotyping of members and we're all set. :^:

[Aphrodite]

You're not a member, you are among the elite banned exmods. That is a whole new game.

[Steven]

You're not a member, you are among the elite banned exmods. That is a whole new game.
Well, I may have said I was a member in a past post, but this is true. Plus, I was directing it towards Vash going against Ants! anyway.

Do I get a stereotyping? Do I, do I?! :D

there's no reason not to try.
This is somewhat true, at this point in time.

[VashTheStampede]

Insert Kat's stereotyping of members and we're all set. :^:

If you have a point I totally missed it.

He said that we should admit to the "mistake" as if it was fact that there WAS a mistake made. That seems presumptuous to me, but I'm sure that's just another mistake I'll be told to admit to.

[Steven]

If you have a point I totally missed it.

He said that we should admit to the "mistake" as if it was fact that there WAS a mistake made. That seems presumptuous to me, but I'm sure that's just another mistake I'll be told to admit to.
Oh, I was referring to how Kat said "all members think they know everything". Or something along those lines.

We all still hate you. Admit how wrong you were about the cookies. :wink:

[Aphrodite]

It has yet to be wrong in this thread.

[Steven]

Not in this present thread, anyway. But a looksie into the split off portion and...

hmmm, shortkut seemed like a good guy. At least he retains his mod position. How much longer do the smods have before new ones are elected anyway?
He didn't act like he knew everything.

I so win.

[Aphrodite]

It was not posted in the pre-split thread :)

[Steven]

It was not posted in the pre-split thread :)
If I understood that, I'd attempt to create a witty comeback. Unfortunately, I fail in both halves of my scenario. :(

I'd look for more examples, but you would find some way to confuse me more, or to put in useless effort. Damn you.

[Ants!]

I almost said "their mistake", but then I felt that it would be doing something close to what Vash is saying, so I felt it better to say "a mistake" instead. As in, not being specific to this particular ruling, but their rulings in general. Yeah, that little word changed a lot. However, in hind sight I realized that I should have stuck with what I originally typed, because although I do feel that they've made a mistake THIS time (and yes, I am sure we are right on this. NOT because we've made more post like Vash is implying my reasoning for feeling that way is, but because of the cases presented by both sides which, I do not feel that the people favoring the ruling have yet given a reason for it that hasn't been proven to be bumkiss), I do know that they have admitted to mistakes in the past and undo previous rulings they have made. I mean I should know, because if that were not true, I would never have had my old account unbanned or had an unfair warning or two removed shortly after having been given them.

Anyway Vash, you are right, I DO think that I am in the right on this one, but I have much better reasons for feeling that way than you give me credit for. This case is not the norm, though, because in most of the times in the past that things like this have happened I have actually seen eye-to-eye with you.

Edit: I also forgot to add that the point of my post wasn't really so much on accusing you of a mistake so much as it was to make a point that among our reasons for debating this for so long, believing that we could convince any of you to change your mind was definitely not one of them.

[shortkut]

since hinting at getting people to stop posting didn't work. being subtle didn't work. and clearly saying you can stop didn't work, it is time for reverse psychology
EVERYONE POST AND DEFEND MY HONOR

[Duh'venger]

since hinting at getting people to stop posting didn't work. being subtle didn't work. and clearly saying you can stop didn't work, it is time for reverse psychology
EVERYONE POST AND DEFEND MY HONOR

EDIT:*deletes long insulting rant never actually written due to irreversible apathy fostered by this place's irreversible smarminess*

See y'all in another month.

[Ants!]

Chill, man! I said I was ready to give it a rest, didn't I? :)

[Dantilus]

since hinting at getting people to stop posting didn't work. being subtle didn't work. and clearly saying you can stop didn't work, it is time for reverse psychologyAdmin decisions are only half about the people directly affected by them. The people "defending" you aren't usually doing it for you; they might just think it's a bad decision regardless of who it was, or they might just like protesting.

[shortkut]

Admin decisions are only half about the people directly affected by them. The people "defending" you aren't usually doing it for you; they might just think it's a bad decision regardless of who it was, or they might just like protesting.
i think that last part was pretty obvious

[Steven]

EVERYONE POST AND DEFEND MY HONOR
But that would lead us to ending number two, where half the people who posted in this thread get banned by Al because he's just that much of a badass.

I humbly request the title of this thread change from "A disappointing announcement" to "Come here and ramble for cake!".

[Northern Lights]

Man, that Al just never shuts up, does he?

We've given it a rest but he just keeps coming back and defending the administrators' decision. :shake: