A disappointing announcement: shortkut (split 8/31/06) [Archive]

Aphrodite

August 19th, 2006, 06:07 PM

Well someone has to stick up for kut, seeing as the rug was pulled out while he was freaking on vacation.

So what are you suggesting, keep him as an smod until the day he gets back?

That would just be rubbing his face in it.

It was hardly "Stupid, pointless and annoying" was it?

In what way was it not all 3 of those?

Eh, I don't see how the first two, racked up before he was S-modded, cloud his ability to do the job.

They mean that if the process worked, he wouldn't have been nominated to begin with.

Kat I'm not quite sure what you're saying. It seems like mixed metaphors to me, though I suspect I'm just being thick.

Since the smods aren't chosen by the admins, to let Kut be nominated means giving him a chance despite the warnings. They weren't just forgotten because his position changed. You can get demodded for 2 sig violations (As in when a member loses theirs for a month, not even the full removal), displaying immaturity, etc... So naturally it's only a higher standard for smods.

Shadow.

August 19th, 2006, 06:07 PM

I'm sure shortkut meant well by inviting the guy to join that club since he expressed interest in Stargate or whatever. Why is that even a punishable offence? Who got hurt? Someone get offended? It was hardly "Stupid, pointless and annoying" was it?
This is mainly what I'm thinking.

He tried to help the member by inviting him to a clan so he can talk about it more after the thread dies or gets closed. He didnt do it to annoy anyone he didnt do it to start trouble he did it to try to help a fellow member enjoy their stay here at gw by showing the member something of his interest.

canadaguy

August 19th, 2006, 06:09 PM

So what are you suggesting, keep him as an smod until the day he gets back?

That would just be rubbing his face in it.

Well, it sure as hell made it a lot easier. I mean, if he was still around, he might have actually been able to defend his actions.

Aphrodite

August 19th, 2006, 06:09 PM

The member in question hasn't visited GW since December 20th 2005, by the way.

The Smart Patrol

August 19th, 2006, 06:10 PM

Tom

August 19th, 2006, 06:14 PM

They mean that if the process worked, he wouldn't have been nominated to begin with.

Since the smods aren't chosen by the admins, to let Kut be nominated means giving him a chance despite the warnings. They weren't just forgotten because his position changed. You can get demodded for 2 sig violations (As in when a member loses theirs for a month, not even the full removal), displaying immaturity, etc... So naturally it's only a higher standard for smods.

Oh, right, I get it, so this decision is the admins telling the mods they made a bad decision in the first place? AWESOME. F*ck a democratic system. This is like England except with a Queen that kicks parliament's ass when it makes bad decisions instead of sitting there waving and wearing a crown!

And S-mods need a higher standard why?

Demikain

August 19th, 2006, 06:17 PM

Forget about it shorty- who the hell wants to be an Smod anyway? It's kind of like being a prefect in 6th year at high school; you have to do more work and no-one respects you for it anyway. I was never a prefect because I was far too busy smoking cigarettes and generally being the coolest ****er in the playground.
It's not about his demotion, more about principle and the grounds on why it happened.

Kat, I'd be surprised if Kut checked to see when the member last posted. He probably just wanted to be helpful. I really don't see why anyone should be punished for that.

Coleman

August 19th, 2006, 06:29 PM

I got booted in between posting, so this is slightly late and almost repeats what Kat just said. But here it is anyway.

Eh, I don't see how the first two, racked up before he was S-modded, cloud his ability to do the job. He had the warnings when he was voted in, right? So how does one, borderline caution change that?The rules didn't change between when he got the warnings, and when he got sModded. There's a reason warnings stay valid for a year, ya know? Because they go to the whole of the members ability to follow them, they aren't just active for a week or "when something changes." He was voted into the position under the impression that he got his "mistakes" out of the way. Then, I'm sad to say, he had another lapse in judgement that pushed "a couple of mistakes" into "maybe we should rethink this".

He tried to help the member by inviting him to a clan so he can talk about it more after the thread dies or gets closed. He didnt do it to annoy anyone he didnt do it to start trouble he did it to try to help a fellow member enjoy their stay here at gw by showing the member something of his interest.It's not a matter of whether or not he was trying to help, it's the matter of the fact that his post was not in the spirit of the original thread. Was it on topic? In a way, sure, I grant that. But was it still SPAM? Yeah, more than likely.

Well, it sure as hell made it a lot easier. I mean, if he was still around, he might have actually been able to defend his actions.Who says he can't explain his actions, and defend himself? I may not have much say in what happens to him, but as the mod of the TV forum, I'd like to hear his explination.

Oh, right, I get it, so this decision is the admins telling the mods they made a bad decision in the first place? AWESOME. F*ck a democratic system. This is like England except with a Queen that kicks parliament's ass when it makes bad decisions instead of sitting there waving and wearing a crown!No. This was the admins showing that warnings aren't the only thing that means anything around here. kut has a long and fairly good history with GameWinners, and is respected for it. The positives outweighed his two negative warnings, and he was given a chance to prove that he was worthy of the position.

And S-mods need a higher standard why?Even moreso than mods, sMods have to enforce the rules. How can someone enforce the rules if he's not willing to follow them? If he had "gotten away" with that post, and then someone did a similar thing in one of his forums, he warned the person, they got banned, wouldn't it be a little hypocritical?

Kat, I'd be surprised if Kut checked to see when the member last posted. He probably just wanted to be helpful. I really don't see why anyone should be punished for that.Him not realizing the member hadn't been around, or even that the thread was a 9 month old bump is one thing. That's an honest mistake, I personally am not debating that. But if anyone else had done the same thing, simply posted in a thread in an effort to get someone to join a clan in another forum, and not posting anything relevant to the ACTUAL topic at hand, I should hope any mod would warn them.

Demikain

August 19th, 2006, 06:37 PM

It's not a matter of whether or not he was trying to help, it's the matter of the fact that his post was not in the spirit of the original thread. Was it on topic? In a way, sure, I grant that. But was it still SPAM? Yeah, more than likely.
Was it stupid? Pointless? Annoying?

If you find the answer to any of these questions to be yes:

You are WRONG!

Good day sir.

canadaguy

August 19th, 2006, 06:38 PM

Who says he can't explain his actions, and defend himself? I may not have much say in what happens to him, but as the mod of the TV forum, I'd like to hear his explination.

Well, I suppose he could, but to me it would seem to be akin to having a court trial after turning off the electric chair.

Coleman

August 19th, 2006, 06:39 PM

Was it stupid? Pointless? Annoying?

If you find the answer to any of these questions to be yes:

You are WRONG!

Good day sir.Oh, well I guess that settles it...

Stupid: In the sense that it probably wasn't wise for him to post a link to a clan and not even mention what shows he happens to like.
Annoying: Eh, maybe not so much.
Pointless: Yes and no. Yes it was relevant to the THREAD, but it wasn't relevant to the topic.

But hey, haziness is why it was a caution that happened to be "the final straw."

Well, I suppose he could, but to me it would seem to be akin to having a court trial after turning off the electric chair.Bans get lifted if the administration feels they weren't right in the first place, warnings get revoked if they were incorrect, hell, just a couple of months ago, Stalin got demodded after having a sig nuke that was a borderline troll/flame, and got remodded a day or two later due to extenuating circumstances.

When he comes back and he posts his thoughts and opinions and justification on the matter, if the admins believe it to be true, or feel they've made a mistake, it wouldn't be hard to flip the little switch that turns a name from red to green.

Tom

August 19th, 2006, 06:43 PM

The rules didn't change between when he got the warnings, and when he got sModded. There's a reason warnings stay valid for a year, ya know? Because they go to the whole of the members ability to follow them, they aren't just active for a week or "when something changes." He was voted into the position under the impression that he got his "mistakes" out of the way. Then, I'm sad to say, he had another lapse in judgement that pushed "a couple of mistakes" into "maybe we should rethink this".

Yeah, I can see exactly how that post makes him unfit to be a S-mod. As a member, I no longer have any respect for him, and simply WON'T be bossed around by someone who uses these forums for the wanton purpose of directing people to things that would interest them.

This isn't reasoned, considered thinking at all, this is the same arbitrariness as always.

It's not a matter of whether or not he was trying to help, it's the matter of the fact that his post was not in the spirit of the original thread. Was it on topic? In a way, sure, I grant that. But was it still SPAM? Yeah, more than likely.

It was on topic, but it was still SPAM? Eh?

Even moreso than mods, sMods have to enforce the rules. How can someone enforce the rules if he's not willing to follow them? If he had "gotten away" with that post, and then someone did a similar thing in one of his forums, he warned the person, they got banned, wouldn't it be a little hypocritical?

Ah, so S-mods have to be better than regular members. Well that's that cleared up then! :teaset: I'd like to think shortkut wouldn't, in fact be petty enough to warn for that. As you admitted yourself, it was 'sort of' on topic, and directed the person to something that would interest them.

Him not realizing the member hadn't been around, or even that the thread was a 9 month old bump is one thing. That's an honest mistake, I personally am not debating that. But if anyone else had done the same thing, simply posted in a thread in an effort to get someone to join a clan in another forum, and not posting anything relevant to the ACTUAL topic at hand, I should hope any mod would warn them.

Had he made a post about one sentance of the original post, without the clan link, such as a comment about the shows he mentioned, say, "Ooh, [Shows]. They're not bad at all. Clearly you're a man of taste." it would not have been warned at all, because topics are just fluid like that. The fact that he directed him elsewhere, how does that change things?

Aphrodite

August 19th, 2006, 06:48 PM

It was on topic, but it was still SPAM? Eh?

No part of spam requires it to be off topic.

This is in there, though:
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.

Coleman

August 19th, 2006, 06:51 PM

It was on topic, but it was still SPAM? Eh?I'm glad you read the rest of that before responding. ... It was on topic IN A SENSE, but it still wasn't on topic with the original spirit of the thread.

Question: "What's your favorite color?"
Apropriate Answer: "I like red."
Inapropriate Answer: "For more information on colors, consult a box of crayons!"

Ah, so S-mods have to be better than regular members.Well yeah, when you spin it like that, I guess that's what I said.

I'd like to think shortkut wouldn't, in fact be petty enough to warn for that. As you admitted yourself, it was 'sort of' on topic, and directed the person to something that would interest them.Hmm. Let me try just this one last time.

Not On Topic = Warning
On Topic = No Warning
Sort of on topic + sort of NOT on topic = Caution.

Yup, seems ok to me. He didn't get warned for it BECAUSE it "rode the line" of whether or not it was SPAM, he got a CAUTION, like all (or most) members who make a borderline mistake get. This caution, however, happened to happen to a member of the forums who was put in a position of power where he is expected to not only KNOW the rules, but adhere to them and make sure they are enforced. It also happened to happen to a member of the forums who had received two warnings in only seven months. Both of which happened while already a moderator.

No one is saying an sMod has to be "better than" a member, but they should be more apt to follow the rules.

I'll say it again. If he's not following rules, it would be hypocritical for him to enforce them.

Tom

August 19th, 2006, 07:03 PM

Question: "What's your favorite color?"
Apropriate Answer: "I like red."
Inapropriate Answer: "For more information on colors, consult a box of crayons!"

No, but "if you like red, there's a thread dedicated to it here" WOULD be reasonable. Just like that link Shortkut posted! About the thing the guy liked! Wow!

Hmm. Let me try just this one last time.

Not On Topic = Warning
On Topic = No Warning
Sort of on topic + sort of NOT on topic = Caution.

Yup, seems ok to me. He didn't get warned for it BECAUSE it "rode the line" of whether or not it was SPAM, he got a CAUTION, like all (or most) members who make a borderline mistake get. This caution, however, happened to happen to a member of the forums who was put in a position of power where he is expected to not only KNOW the rules, but adhere to them and make sure they are enforced. It also happened to happen to a member of the forums who had received two warnings in only seven months. Both of which happened while already a moderator.

No one is saying an sMod has to be "better than" a member, but they should be more apt to follow the rules.

I'll say it again. If he's not following rules, it would be hypocritical for him to enforce them.

If he actually broke a rule, why no warning? If it was 'borderline', then it's dubious. If it's dubious, then de S-modding him is rather an 'extreme' reaction, since he hasn't out and out broke a rule. You said Shortkut couldn't warn members for posts like his own: he wasn't warned for it himself. Whilst I still don't even think the post was SPAM, if it was 'sort of' SPAM, desmodding him for breaking half a rule seems harsh.

Was he told he'd be on Zero Tolerance?

Aphrodite

August 19th, 2006, 07:07 PM

canadaguy

August 19th, 2006, 07:07 PM

So lets all just shut up and not question anything ever.

Vermin

August 19th, 2006, 07:09 PM

Was he told he'd be on Zero Tolerance?
actually, this is the question that should have been asked at the very begining.

Coleman

August 19th, 2006, 07:12 PM

No, but "if you like red, there's a thread dedicated to it here" WOULD be reasonable. Just like that link Shortkut posted! About the thing the guy liked! Wow!Reasonable != Apropriate. HENCE! Caution! Not Warning! Caution! Wow!

If he actually broke a rule, why no warning? If it was 'borderline', then it's dubious. If it's dubious, then de S-modding him is rather an 'extreme' reaction, since he hasn't out and out broke a rule. You said Shortkut couldn't warn members for posts like his own: he wasn't warned for it himself. Whilst I still don't even think the post was SPAM, if it was 'sort of' SPAM, desmodding him for breaking half a rule seems harsh.

Was he told he'd be on Zero Tolerance?You're ability to jump through loopholes is SO VERY VERY CUTE! I could just pinch you.

And dubious is entirely the wrong word. Which is why the word "borderline" is often applied. It was borderline. It was both SPAM, and not SPAM at the same time. Once again! Clearing up that it was a caution, and not a warning BECAUSE it wasn't "full on". That's why we have cautions ya know.

And as far as the rest of that goes. Since you're ignoring the fact that I've mentioned half dozen times that an sMod needs to follow the rules to the letter, I'm just gonna...IGNORE YOU! So there.

You always seem to have this opinion that you know the rules so much better than everyone else. It really is this simple; You're wrong. You could argue all day about how you think it should happen and be enforced, but it just won't matter. There's no debate, because your opinion on the interpretation just doesn't matter in the face of an admin decision.I disagree. I have no problem with people disagreeing with the ruling, I have no problem with people wanting to fight for shortkuts rights. I really don't. It's healthy and it insures that the forums are running as well as humanly possible.

My only problem lies with teh fact that Tom seems hell bent on ignoring that which he can't counter, and just generally spinning what I (and others) are trying to say in order to make it sound crooked and corrupt.

canadaguy

August 19th, 2006, 07:12 PM

Is there any reason to differentiate it as a caution if the effect would be the same?

Aphrodite

August 19th, 2006, 07:13 PM

actually, this is the question that should have been asked at the very begining.

He wasn't on zero tolerance. He knew the microscope smods are under when he accepted the nomination to be one.

I disagree. I have no problem with people disagreeing with the ruling, I have no problem with people wanting to fight for shortkuts rights. I really don't. It's healthy and it insures that the forums are running as well as humanly possible.

My only problem lies with teh fact that Tom seems hell bent on ignoring that which he can't counter, and just generally spinning what I (and others) are trying to say in order to make it sound crooked and corrupt.

I meant Tom specifically.

Every time.

Boy who cried wolf.

It's always the same argument. If there was some confusion over Kut's intention, fine. But this argument is about people reading the rules differently, which is not an issue that can be debated. One's own mistake is no defense against anything.

Coleman

August 19th, 2006, 07:14 PM

actually, this is the question that should have been asked at the very begining.Guys. He wasn't desModded due to a single caution. He was desModded due to "a pattern of rule breaking behaviour."

If a member had the same situation, maybe they'd be temp-banned, maybe they'd be put on Zero Tolerance. Those are both "steps down" from regular member.

A step down from Super-Moderator is moderator. Which is what happened. If the post was a full on warning, kut may not even have a red name right now, he'd have a blue name. But becuase it was a caution, he got the equivalant of a member getting temp-banned or put on a ZT, he got demoted.

Demikain

August 19th, 2006, 07:15 PM

You always seem to have this opinion that you know the rules so much better than everyone else. It really is this simple; You're wrong. You could argue all day about how you think it should happen and be enforced, but it just won't matter. There's no debate, because your opinion on the interpretation just doesn't matter in the face of an admin decision.
Fine. Look up the rules, maybe we're all wrong and according to them, shortkut deserved his punishment. All that means is that the rules are f*cking sh*t.

Why can't the mod team just lighten up and not jump at the chance to take any kind of action against any minor little thing? What kut did didn't offend anyone. NOBODY ****ING CARED! Why is there a constant need to enforce these ****ty rules against everyone, even if they've barely put a foot wrong?

Kat, I've seen you pull way worse **** than this in PIMI. Kut tries to help someone and gets punished, while you borderline troll incessantly and get away scot-free. The whole thing is ridiculous.

Coleman

August 19th, 2006, 07:15 PM

Is there any reason to differentiate it as a caution if the effect would be the same?The effect wouldn't have been the same, I don't think. I can't speak on behalf of the admins, but I would think if it was a full warning, he likely would've been bumped straight down to member.

canadaguy

August 19th, 2006, 07:23 PM

The effect wouldn't have been the same, I don't think. I can't speak on behalf of the admins, but I would think if it was a full warning, he likely would've been bumped straight down to member.

If that was the case, I would really wonder how serious people are starting to take things around here. Before you know it, people will start getting in trouble for stuff they have done at other websites....... or has that already started?

Some people need to realize that just because they have a different coloured username, doesnt mean that they have accomplished anything important.

Shadow.

August 19th, 2006, 07:30 PM

I've see a good amount of moderators with 2 warnings within the last year who are still mods and the warnings are a lot worse.

Coleman

August 19th, 2006, 07:32 PM

Some people need to realize that just because they have a different coloured username, doesnt mean that they have accomplished anything important.No it doesn't, but they should be held to a slightly higher standard.

I've see many moderators with 2 warnings within the last year who are still mods and the warnings are a lot worse.kut had two warnings AND a caution.

canadaguy

August 19th, 2006, 07:35 PM

No it doesn't, but they should be held to a slightly higher standard.

It wasnt kut I was refering to.

Coleman

August 19th, 2006, 07:40 PM

I assumed as much, but it doesn't change what I said.

What I got from your post was that the members in general shouldn't assume that moving from member to mod or mod to sMod doesn't mean it "changes" them or that they've done "anything special" to get there. But the members should still hold people in those positions to a slightly higher standard none the less.

Shadow.

August 19th, 2006, 07:42 PM

Demikain

August 19th, 2006, 07:47 PM

I am willing to say lots of the members dont give a sh*t about the caution and would like to keep shortkut as a smod. Members dont care what the mods do as long as it is reasonable and as long as the do their job.

I mean holy sh*t, PIMI is defending him.

Also, banana :D
I FOUND IT YES!

aaaand someone probably waiting in the shadows for someone to utter 'banana' stole it away from my grasp.

Whatever will I do, gamewinners? :(

This is probably SPAM so umm:

Shadow is right. I'd wager that few people think shortkut should be demoted except the admins who think they know what's best all the time, and those who agree with almost all admin decisions because they're admin decisions.

Coleman

August 19th, 2006, 08:00 PM

Shadow is right. I'd wager that few people think shortkut should be demoted except the admins who think they know what's best all the time, and those who agree with almost all admin decisions because they're admin decisions.Where do the people who disagree with all admin decisions because they're admin decisions fit?

Aphrodite

August 19th, 2006, 08:26 PM

They fit in #pimi, Coleman.

I've see a good amount of moderators with 2 warnings within the last year who are still mods and the warnings are a lot worse.

Racism and power abuse? Show me.

Edit: Blah blah, there was no issued power abuse warning.

Shadow is right. I'd wager that few people think shortkut should be demoted except the admins who think they know what's best all the time, and those who agree with almost all admin decisions because they're admin decisions.

You're right, Kut should have been demoted for his blatant disregard for the guidelines of his smod powers.

shortkut was not demoted for the spam post, he was demoted for repeated offenses and the spam post happened to be the final straw.

Ben

August 19th, 2006, 08:31 PM

I mean holy sh*t, PIMI is defending him.No, the people who, time and time again, vehemently argue what something unjust and foul was done, are defending him.

I mean, seriously... Is it THAT hard to drop your "oh this was a horribly vile act!" mantra for a few minutes and take a look at the facts?

shortkut had one warning for calling someone a "doosh". If you argue that that is not a flame, I'm of a mind to ban you right now to save any future rulebreaking due to complete and utter inability to interpret them.

shortkut had a second warning for racism. While I'm not stating what was said as it was a mod forum topic, racist remarks as a whole are taken VERY seriously.

Now this caution, which when Cole originally explained the situation to me via my cellphone without even telling me it was a smod, I was of the mindset that it required a warning. I then investigated myself and was still of the mindset that it warranted a warning.

shortkut's post was only on topic in the sense that the member stated that he liked Stargate SG-1. shortkut's post wasn't needed, and would have been perfectly suited to a PM. His post added nothing to the thread, barely had anything to do with the original post, and was overall pointless.

After discussing it, the admins came to the conclusion that rather than issue a full warning, because of that small relevancy to the original post a caution would be better suited.

That caution, coupled with his previous two warnings for SERIOUS infractions, painted an incredibly unattractive picture of shortkut in his ability to follow the rules. Why should we admins keep someone around when we can't trust that they're not just going to break the rules again and again?

But, of course, you fellows COMPLETELY ignore the fact that we merely demoted him to moderator, allowing him to keep some semblance of respect around here and help out around the site. You COMPLETELY ignore that we let him off easily when three warnings is generally an outright demod. You COMPLETELY ignore that we took into account how he's been a moderator for 3 years and has only had issues in the past 7 months. That's just how you guys are, you'll clamp onto any implication that tyranny was involved and ignore anything kind that the admins actually did.

You think Gamewinners is strict with the rules? Would you rather we run things like, say, SomethingAwful? You wouldn't get any cautions there. You wouldn't get 5 chances before getting banned. You'd get put on probation for your first screw up, if you're lucky, and then you'd be banned. And you'd be put on probation for things so trivial as misusing the spoiler tag.

Oh, but no. The admins are the evil ogres that are out to get everyone and suppress the peons and loot and rape and pillage and burn to hear the lamanetations of the women.

It's getting old.

And for the record, I didn't even know that shortkut was on LOA until after I'd desmodded and PMed him.

canadaguy

August 19th, 2006, 08:48 PM

Yeah, okay. You got me. This is all a big game simply so that I look cool for standing up to our unquestionable leaders. But now that that cat is out of the bag, I suppose there is no reason to do it anymore, so go ahead and run things however you want.

But for the record, I am now gonna totally narc out at every little freaking thing I see.

Lazy F*ck

August 19th, 2006, 09:04 PM

I usually don't post in threads about demoddings or bannings and such, but I figure I might as well since I actually have an opinion about this.

You can easily argue both sides of the caution, since it seems kut had good intentions. The guy said he liked Stargate so kut was trying to direct him to a place to converse about the show with other fans.

On the other hand, it really didn't have anything to do with the actual topic, and was directed at a post made, what was it, nine months ago?

None the less, it seems like a trivial thing to get de-smodded over. kut is a productive member, a good mod, and I'm sure he was a good S-Mod. He made an 'almost spam' post. It's not like he completely disrupted the flow of the forum or flammed the sh*t out of somebody, or did something, you know, serious.

...allowing him to keep some semblance of respect around here...
Honestly, I doubt anyone would lose respect towards him if he was completely demodded over this...

Dean

August 19th, 2006, 09:09 PM

You COMPLETELY ignore that we let him off easily when three warnings is generally an outright demod.

Technically, it was two warnings and a caution.

Anyway, when I read through the first page all I saw was Tom. arguing for shortkut, Cole arguing for the cautionable/warnable offense he found, and Aphrodite regurgiating what people have been saying for a while now whenever an issue like this has been brought up.

Now that I look at the second page (keep in mind I'm on 40 posts per page view) and have read everything and BG's post, eh, I can see the logical behind the desmod. While I consider shortkut a personal friend as well as a personable moderator, generally, I have to admit I had my doubts about him becoming an smod in the first place. But, he was proving those doubts to be unwarranted... until this issue. From the way I've seen things, I don't feel like kut actually looked at the dates of the posts. He probably saw two posts that were pretty recent and posted what he felt was on-topic and beneficial to the member.

Yeah, it sucks that he was trying to do something nice and it ended up biting him in the ass, but should he be off the hook due to either ignorance or misinterpretation of the rules? Eh, I guess it's up to your interpretation, and since the administrators were set in place by Al (I think all three were) that means he trusts them enough and respects their decision enough to give them the ability to decide if kut deserves a second chance or made an honest mistake and should be forgiven, or if he should be condemned for his misdeed.

This isn't coming from anyone with an alterior motive. I didn't actually notice this thread until I went to the main page of the forums and saw "A disappointing announcement." I actually assumed it was about Vincent and was just curious as to what was going on, but regardless, this is coming from an ex-mod (by choice, mind you :P) who actually agrees with the admin's decision. It's not just because they're admins, but because it seems like a rational course of action. I don't mean to discredit any of the example situations expressed by the posters in this thread, but I feel that the admins made as good a decision as they could, and I honestly feel like it was the right one.

That doesn't mean shortkut can't contest it and attempt to clear his name and express his intentions, yadda yadda yadda, and who knows? Maybe the admins will decide to revoke the caution/warning/whatever (warnings HAVE been revoked before, y'know, so I'd imagine cautions can as well.)

I think the one thing we're all forgetting is... this is a gaming forum. It's a gaming forum on the Internet. There have to be some type of rules in order to create the environment that the owner of the gaming forum desires. And the admins are in place to create the environment that Al feels will best serve its members.

Ben

August 19th, 2006, 09:16 PM

Technically, it was two warnings and a caution.I meant if we'd warned him instead of cautioned (hence, if he'd recieved 3 warnings), he probably would have been outright demodded.

jackenape

August 19th, 2006, 09:30 PM

I blame this whole thread on Cole, and by proxy, Ben. If they'd just labeled the damned post as "Advertising," rather than SPAM, this could have been totally avoided.

Way to go, ya jerks.

Cecil DK Knight

August 19th, 2006, 10:39 PM

Now this caution, which when Cole originally explained the situation to me via my cellphone without even telling me it was a smod, I was of the mindset that it required a warning. I then investigated myself and was still of the mindset that it warranted a warning.
You guys really talk about Gamewinners over the phone?

Ben

August 19th, 2006, 11:49 PM

You guys really talk about Gamewinners over the phone?
He has my cellphone number. Plus all of my AIM messages get forwarded to my cellphone if I'm idle at my PC.

Coleman

August 20th, 2006, 12:01 AM

You guys really talk about Gamewinners over the phone?I texted him with it becuase I needed someone to see it who initially wouldn't be swayed by kuts position.

Schteve

August 20th, 2006, 07:27 AM

I've see a good amount of moderators with 2 warnings within the last year who are still mods and the warnings are a lot worse.And I've seen moderators get demodded after two warnings for things that are a lot stupider...like signature infractions. And on top of that, there hasn't been any other smods or admins who've gotten any warnings. I really don't think this is all that harsh considering what Erik's accumulated.

On that note, I see quite a few people defending Erik in his absence. Ever think that he might actually agree with the action taken? I know he handled his last warning quite well, and he is one to admit when he's wrong. You might be making a bigger deal than he ever would about this.

Coleman

August 20th, 2006, 10:58 AM

And I've seen moderators get demodded after two warnings for things that are a lot stupider...like signature infractions.I was gonna mention those before, but I think it's a different situation. As I told someone in the Court last week or so, signature nukes are considered far worse because they are the easiest rules to follow. Rules on SPAM, flaming, trolling are at the eye of the moderator giving the warning, but signatures are an exact science, which is why if a mod gets two nukes they get axed.

Young Dro

August 20th, 2006, 11:47 AM

wow...racism...hmm..

Anyway, he seemed okay, but since hes demodded, if he took my sig away, does that mean i get it back? lol..

Mojo.

August 20th, 2006, 11:57 AM

wow...racism...hmm..

Anyway, he seemed okay, but since hes demodded, if he took my sig away, does that mean i get it back? lol..
He wasn't demodded, he was de-s-modded. And you don't get your sig back, because it broke the rules. As Cole said, the most simple rules of the site.

Cecil DK Knight

August 20th, 2006, 06:35 PM

He has my cellphone number. Plus all of my AIM messages get forwarded to my cellphone if I'm idle at my PC.
That doesn't sound as bad as 'talking' GW business over the phone, I take it the two of you know eachother in real life? I guess GW politics is a lot more serious than I lead on to believe. :shrug:

Coleman

August 20th, 2006, 07:03 PM

That doesn't sound as bad as 'talking' GW business over the phone, I take it the two of you know eachother in real life? I guess GW politics is a lot more serious than I lead on to believe.I've never met him, but I'm good friends (as in, not GW associates) with both Ben and Brig, and I've talked to Ben on the phone before, but not really about GW. Or at least, not about GW "policies", I mean naturally since this is where we met, things relating to GW have been brought up, but not policy or "political" type things. We text eachother more than anything and that's just to get opinions, usually.

Steven

August 21st, 2006, 07:27 AM

The admins are the evil ogres that are out to get everyone and suppress the peons and loot and rape and pillage and burn to hear the lamanetations of the women.
Those sound more like vikings than ogres.

You're insulting yourself, however, along with fellow admins, by calling yourself/others ogres. Flame! You should warn yourself, Mister Administrator, yes you should. It would appease the masses by showing that even administrators can make human mistakes! :D

I am now gonna totally narc out at every little freaking thing I see.
How's that different from 70% of the moderators (who, may I add, end up doing the things they narc over)?

If that was the case, I would really wonder how serious people are starting to take things around here. Before you know it, people will start getting in trouble for stuff they have done at other websites....... or has that already started?
See Vinny and the goatse incident (unless, of course, I misread/misinterpretted what had happened). Hell, if you wanna get technical... You get in trouble if your image is too large, and images are hosted from other websites. Which means they get in trouble for things they do (hosting images) on other sites. Yay technicality.

Seriously, though. While the reasoning behind shortkut's demotion make sense, it just seems like a damn shame that such borderline acts can result in such actions as a demotion. We all know that, more than likely, shortkut's intentions were meant to benefit the site in the sense that a member of the site could share a common interest of his/hers (didn't bother looking at who) with fellow users in an environment suitable for it.

Of course, what I've said has probably already been argued over. Skimming through ftw. As long as shortkut gets the opportunity to explain it himself, even if the actions remain permanent or if they are taken back, then the whole situation is as settled as it can get.

Using the logic behind the shortkut caution, though, shouldn't Cecil DK Knight and Coleman be cautioned or warned for talking about how/why two people interact over a phone? Like Coleman said (and I am paraphrasing, I couldn't give two sh*ts less about the word-for-word quote): the posts may be relevant to the topic at hand, but it's not relevant to the thread. Or whatever. Talking about how BG and Coleman text each other and communicate, to speak of opinions, or whatever the hell they talk about, has nothing to do with shortkut and his demotion, but it has everything to do with what they made the current topic into. Sounds like the shortkut post, minus the linkage. :-\

What they're talking about should be considered "borderline SPAM", and to be true to your rule enforcement, they should be cautioned or warned, just like shortkut was. I don't really care if they do or don't get cautioned/warned, I just figured fair's fair.

Coleman

August 21st, 2006, 11:49 AM

Using the logic behind the shortkut caution, though, shouldn't Cecil DK Knight and Coleman be cautioned or warned for talking about how/why two people interact over a phone? Like Coleman said (and I am paraphrasing, I couldn't give two sh*ts less about the word-for-word quote): the posts may be relevant to the topic at hand, but it's not relevant to the thread. Or whatever. Talking about how BG and Coleman text each other and communicate, to speak of opinions, or whatever the hell they talk about, has nothing to do with shortkut and his demotion, but it has everything to do with what they made the current topic into. Sounds like the shortkut post, minus the linkageThat's...one of the more ridiculous things I've ever read. Aside from the fact that thread wasn't 9 months old, aside from the fact that I had already been actively posting in the thread, and aside from the fact that a direct question was asked that I answered, yeah, you're right.

Aside from all that, rather pivetol information, I was completely off topic. The thread didn't go from talking about one thing, to just randomly being a discussion on the lifestyles of Ben and myself. Ben mentioned how I contacted him, Cecil asked for a question as clarification, I clarified.

shortkut came into a thread asking about favorite TV shows, rather than mention his favorite TV show, he simply said, "Hey, come here instead!" Right. They're the SAME exact situation. I can see how you'd make that rather obvious assumption.

Steven

August 21st, 2006, 11:55 AM

You know, the sad thing is I realized what you said in your final paragraph, but didn't bother deleting that last sentence anyway. So my apologies on that rather weak comparison, but I'm just saying, I don't really think a question about what two staff members text about (and a following response) has much relevance to a de-throned s-mod. Y'know?

~EDIT~

I'm speaking of posts 62 and 63, obviously. Quite honestly, I didn't see relevance to what this thread is supposed to be about, myself, but I'm bound to overlook things. Besides, I'm not the moderator (anymore).

Schteve

August 21st, 2006, 11:59 AM

I don't really think a question about what two staff members text about (and a following response) has much relevance to a de-throned s-mod. Y'know?It's about as much on topic as a post berating irrelevant cell phone activity would be. owait....

Steven

August 21st, 2006, 12:05 PM

It's about as much on topic as a post berating irrelevant cell phone activity would be. owait....
Like your post was any better? :tease:

I'm going to assume that he has the right to explain the situation, but I *would* like to know if Erik gets to talk to the upper staff about this situation.

Schteve

August 21st, 2006, 12:10 PM

Of course he's able to do so if he wishes...just like any member can message the admins if they wish to discuss something.

Coleman

August 21st, 2006, 12:11 PM

I don't really think a question about what two staff members text about (and a following response) has much relevance to a de-throned s-mod. Y'know?

~EDIT~

I'm speaking of posts 62 and 63, obviously. Quite honestly, I didn't see relevance to what this thread is supposed to be about, myself, but I'm bound to overlook things. Besides, I'm not the moderator (anymore).As I just said, apparently, in a poor way, I will attempt to repeat.

Any good productive thread anywhere at GameWinners will almost never take the same path from beginning to end. Threads change, they EVOLVE. The good ones evolve slowly. This thread was purely about shortkut. Then it more or less became about the bad rules (and in some opinions) bad decisions. Ben clarified mentioning my texting of him. Cecil asked a question, I answered it. My answer prompted you to ask a question about it. The thread didn't violently leap from being about shortkut getting desModded to "Oh man, yesterday, Ben and I were talking on the phone, AND I TOTALLY SAW A DUCK!"

The thread kut posted in never evolved. It barely ever got started. At the time of kuts post (aside from the thread being old) the thread was soley about which show on the Sci-Fi channel people found best. kut did NOT mention what show he liked, he iddn't mention what he thought of Sci-Fi, hell, he didn't really mention what he thought of television in general. He just linked to another forum.

There's a BIG, BIG difference.

Steven

August 21st, 2006, 12:13 PM

The thread didn't violently leap from being about shortkut getting desModded to "Oh man, yesterday, Ben and I were talking on the phone, AND I TOTALLY SAW A DUCK!"
You know that would be so much cooler, though.

Cecil DK Knight

August 21st, 2006, 02:24 PM

That's...one of the more ridiculous things I've ever read. Aside from the fact that thread wasn't 9 months old, aside from the fact that I had already been actively posting in the thread, and aside from the fact that a direct question was asked that I answered, yeah, you're right.

Aside from all that, rather pivetol information, I was completely off topic. The thread didn't go from talking about one thing, to just randomly being a discussion on the lifestyles of Ben and myself. Ben mentioned how I contacted him, Cecil asked for a question as clarification, I clarified.

shortkut came into a thread asking about favorite TV shows, rather than mention his favorite TV show, he simply said, "Hey, come here instead!" Right. They're the SAME exact situation. I can see how you'd make that rather obvious assumption.
I'd say something, but I'd just be repeating what Coleman's already stated. So all I'm going to say is my question showed relevance to the topic, I can't really say the same for Kut. Then again, I don't really care what happens to Kut because I'm not active enough for one. I also come here to interact with people, not to get involved with the bureaucratic workings here at GW. So damn you Shiven for getting me involved.

Aphrodite

August 21st, 2006, 02:35 PM

canadaguy

August 21st, 2006, 05:13 PM

If you're interested in off topic posts, you should checkout PIMI (http://forums.gamewinners.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=421).

(That's called an object lesson)

If you were an s-mod I would so call for you to be demoted right now.

And then if it happened I would argue that it shouldnt have. Seriously, who on earth would take my advice on something?

The Protomen

August 21st, 2006, 05:23 PM

LIGHTEN UP, MOD TEAM!

This is a gaming website! You don't all have to be so serious all the time! I'm sure shortkut meant well by inviting the guy to join that club since he expressed interest in Stargate or whatever. Why is that even a punishable offence? Who got hurt? Someone get offended? It was hardly "Stupid, pointless and annoying" was it?

Yes, but if you give someone an inch, they'll take a mile, the line has to be drawn somewhere. Not only that but he was previously warned, if this were his first warning I'd understand. That's my 2 cents. *sips coffee*

Cecil DK Knight

August 21st, 2006, 05:24 PM

If you were an s-mod I would so call for you to be demoted right now.

And then if it happened I would argue that it shouldnt have. Seriously, who on earth would take my advice on something?

You narc out on every little thing, why should they listen to you? :P

Aphrodite

August 21st, 2006, 05:30 PM

If you were an s-mod I would so call for you to be demoted right now.

Offtopic Post: 1/1
Power Abuse: 0/1.

You still need one more objective to complete the quest! I win this round.

canadaguy

August 21st, 2006, 05:38 PM

Ahhh screw this then, I will just read the walkthrough.

shortkut

August 23rd, 2006, 12:09 AM

i haven't read all of this thread or any other discussions. in fact i was just linked to this moments ago by syth. i rarely visit the television forum and when i did, the thread in question was new. the thread starter was not banned so it did not occur to me to check his last activity, though i may do that before i reply to anyone now. i noticed cole and i think someone else mentioned that my post was not in the spirit of the topic. the apparent topic of that thread was obviously about the Scifi channel, but also that he likes sg-1 and the x-files. in an effort to try to increase activity in certain areas of the site, i linked him to a place where he could talk about one of the things he liked. in hindsight it probably would have been better to PM him the link or to send it to him via a rep message, but i had no idea that television was seemingly under a ZT where that would not be allowed. i am sure if i searched the forum in question, there would be other posts that are as off topic as mine was if not more so.

Coleman

August 23rd, 2006, 12:22 AM

in an effort to try to increase activity in certain areas of the siteYou tried to increase activity to one of the three most active forums at GW? While conversely taking activity AWAY from the TV forum which barely gets enough posts to stay alive?

shortkut

August 23rd, 2006, 12:33 AM

You tried to increase activity to one of the three most active forums at GW? While conversely taking activity AWAY from the TV forum which barely gets enough posts to stay alive?
i remember there used to be threads to try to discuss stargate and its spinoff in television, if i had my magic searching powers i could find them. if i recall correctly they constantly died with in a day or so. the clan has very few members but is much more active than those threads were. maybe "increase activity" was the wrong choice of words so you will have to forgive me. it is kind of like putting out an advertisement for the poker forum and he gwps when it is more active than half of what goes on at gamewinners; it might not be 100% necessary but it should not mean do not do it.

Coleman

August 23rd, 2006, 12:37 AM

I advertise for the GWPS to get NEW members. The Poker Forum isn't all that big, it's members are just EXTREMELY active. Advertising for C+C is a little different.

As I said elsewhere, I was on the fence about the post. Which is why I got an opinion from Ben and then it was out of my hands. Whatever I think of you at the moment, or whatever you'd think of me, I'd hope you realize that it wasn't personal. It was a post I found to be in poor judgement, as the only connection it had to the thread was rather weak. I passed it on to Ben who could give me an honest opinion without bias (because he couldn't see it at the time) and after that, he took it from there.

shortkut

August 23rd, 2006, 12:50 AM

I advertise for the GWPS to get NEW members. The Poker Forum isn't all that big, it's members are just EXTREMELY active. Advertising for C+C is a little different.i advertised one thread to get NEW members. i never said it was big, i said it is active which is how you described the section of GW i advertised. using your own words, they are almost exactly the same. technically, i advertised one thread if you care to be more precise.

As I said elsewhere, I was on the fence about the post. Which is why I got an opinion from Ben and then it was out of my hands. Whatever I think of you at the moment, or whatever you'd think of me, I'd hope you realize that it wasn't personal. It was a post I found to be in poor judgement, as the only connection it had to the thread was rather weak. I passed it on to Ben who could give me an honest opinion without bias (because he couldn't see it at the time) and after that, he took it from there.i can't quite think of the words to express my thoughts but i was given many comments on what to say:
"If I started a boulder rolling down and hill and it crushed you when it got to the bottom. I wasn't the one who killed you was I?"
for all intents and purposes, you are saying this is out of your hands. at the moment it is, but when you discovered the post it was solely in your hands. the smods and admins don't traipse around modded forums where the moderator can supposedly do his job and look for little things like this. you were the one who found this and you were the one who decided what to do with it. you constantly said this was an honest mistake and a minor infraction. if that is what you honestly believed you would not have shown it to an admin, you would have let it go. the fact that your actions seem to contradict this, it makes it seem that you are petty and are trying to save face with anyone who might be reading this thread.

Coleman

August 23rd, 2006, 01:00 AM

for all intents and purposes, you are saying this is out of your hands. at the moment it is, but when you discovered the post it was solely in your hands. the smods and admins don't traipse around modded forums where the moderator can supposedly do his job and look for little things like this. you were the one who found this and you were the one who decided what to do with it. you constantly said this was an honest mistake and a minor infraction. if that is what you honestly believed you would not have shown it to an admin, you would have let it go. the fact that your actions seem to contradict this, it makes it seem that you are petty and are trying to save face with anyone who might be reading this thread.Right, because in my history at GW, I've always cared what other people think! Everyone at GameWinners likes and respects me! I totally forgot about that. ...waaaaaaait.

The honest mistake was you not realizing the thread was nine months old. I never said posting in a thread simply to get others to go to another forum was an honest mistake. THAT was a lapse in judgement. And I also never said it was a "minor infraction", I said it was a BORDERLINE infraction. Also a big difference.

If it was a member who had posted the thread, I would have warned or cautioned for it. However since it was an sMod, I obviously couldn't. Ben is the only person who wasn't online at the time that I could still contact that wouldn't be able to see it for himself in order to sway his opinion. If he had said "seems ok to me", it would've been dead. But he said it should be warned for, and then saw the post for himself and it went from there.

I never said it wasn't me behind getting it looked at, I simply said once it was, it was out of my hands because I couldn't control what happened to it afterwards.

But really, I don't mind if you wanna blame me. I'm sure you're not alone, and I'm sure your off gaining support for that cause. But that's ok too. I saw a post that I found to be in poor judgement, and passed it along to people that could do something about it. If they chose to warn you, caution you, desMod you, demod you, or ban you, it was in their hands.

shortkut

August 23rd, 2006, 01:15 AM

when you say other forum do you mean like another message board or another part of gamewinners? the former is obviously against the rules, the latter is not frowned upon unless it is done in a tasteless manner.

it was not a smod who posted the thread, but i assume you meant post. it is an honest mistake.

yes, i am off getting support because if anyone sides with me it is because i begged them to :rolleyes:. get off your high horse and accept that people can disagree with you without being coerced. i wasn't even here when the thread was posted and it almost reached two pages, most of which was saying this is stupid. i have received IMs and PMs stating the same thing. what i am not mentioning is that i asked everyone to post while i had no internet access and i told them to IM and PM me because i am sitting here feeling sorry for myself. i am talking to people right now and they can tell you i am not blaming you. in fact, i find parts of this to be quite humorous.

i was basing my comments on how things appear based on how you have handled other posts that most people would consider to be questionable (i'll find them if i have time) and the contrary nature of your words and your actions. i never said any of it was fact, i said that is what it seems like.

And I also never said it was a "minor infraction", I said it was a BORDERLINE infraction. Also a big difference.
the difference between minor and borderline infractions is that minor infractions are still infractions while a borderline infraction might not. a minor infraction is MORE severe than a borderline
borderline |ˈbôrdərˌlīn|
adjective
barely acceptable in quality or as belonging to a category
minor |ˈmīnər| adjective
lesser in importance, seriousness, or significance

Coleman

August 23rd, 2006, 01:27 AM

when you say other forum do you mean like another message board or another part of gamewinners? the former is obviously against the rules, the latter is not frowned upon unless it is done in a tasteless manner.Who says your post wasn't in a tasteless manner? Your post was on topic only by a loophole that made it such. As I said previously:

Question: "What's your favorite color?"
Apropriate Answer: "I like red."
Inapropriate Answer: "For more information on colors, consult a box of crayons!"Is that on topic? Sure. Is it still absolutley pointless. Definitley. If you had said "Stargate SG-1 is probably my favorite TV show on Sci-Fi. I like it because it's in space! Also, we talk about Stargate in this thread in Clubs and Clans! (link)". Then I wouldn't have had a problem with it. But the fact that you posted just to link someone to another thread, makes it pretty ridiculous to me.

yes, i am off getting support because if anyone sides with me it is because i begged them to. get off your high horse and accept that people can disagree with you without being coerced.Another history lesson: I'm also very used to being opposed and people opposing my opinions. That's not new.

And stating for the record, I never said everyone agreed with it, nor did I say everyone thought it was a crystal clear move. But you and I both know there's still plenty of spin left in this matter. Just because you don't need people to agree that this is "stupid", doesn't mean there aren't things you can say.

in fact, i find parts of this to be quite humorous.At least we still agree on something.

the difference between minor and borderline infractions is that minor infractions are still infractions while a borderline infraction might not. a minor infraction is MORE severe than a borderlineHey! Two things we agree on! For further clarification, let's elaborate.

A minor infraction is an infraction slightly less significant.

While a borderline infraction is EITHER a full infraction, or not an infraction at all. I'd say my point still remains valid.

a minor infraction is MORE severe than a borderlineProbably why it was a caution and not a warning.

shortkut

August 23rd, 2006, 02:03 AM

Who says your post wasn't in a tasteless manner? Your post was on topic only by a loophole that made it such. As I said previously:

Question: "What's your favorite color?"
Apropriate Answer: "I like red."
Inapropriate Answer: "For more information on colors, consult a box of crayons!

Is that on topic? Sure. Is it still absolutley pointless. Definitley. If you had said "Stargate SG-1 is probably my favorite TV show on Sci-Fi. I like it because it's in space! Also, we talk about Stargate in this thread in Clubs and Clans! (link)". Then I wouldn't have had a problem with it. But the fact that you posted just to link someone to another thread, makes it pretty ridiculous to me. common sense would indicate that if i link to a clan for people who like something and i am part of it that i like it. not everyone needs everything spelt out for them. for the record, i did not link him someplace to get more information on something like your color example would have people believe. i directed him to a place where people could talk about things they like. my answer if placed in your example would be more like, "over here we talk about our favorite color red, don't worry if you like other colors too." you make it seem that because i did not spell out that i like it, that it is wrong to mention it.

Another history lesson: I'm also very used to being opposed and people opposing my opinions. That's not new.i was not trying to imply this, only that you think they were forced if agreeing with me is he alternative

And stating for the record, I never said everyone agreed with it, nor did I say everyone thought it was a crystal clear move. But you and I both know there's still plenty of spin left in this matter. Just because you don't need people to agree that this is "stupid", doesn't mean there aren't things you can say. i believe i am saying them now

At least we still agree on something.but probably not on what the funny things are

Hey! Two things we agree on! For further clarification, let's elaborate.

A minor infraction is an infraction slightly less significant.

While a borderline infraction is EITHER a full infraction, or not an infraction at all. I'd say my point still remains valid.

Probably why it was a caution and not a warning.are you trying to say that you don't have enough faith in your own discretion to decide if something was over the line or not?

oops, left this waiting for a while

Coleman

August 23rd, 2006, 02:12 AM

common sense would indicate that if i link to a clan for people who like something and i am part of it that i like it. not everyone needs everything spelt out for them. for the record, i did not link him someplace to get more information on something like your color example would have people believe. i directed him to a place where people could talk about things they like. my answer if placed in your example would be more like, "over here we talk about our favorite color red, don't worry if you like other colors too." you make it seem that because i did not spell out that i like it, that it is wrong to mention it.People get warned for poorly phrased things all the time. Things that aren't spelt out get misinterpreted. Happens fairly commonly, ESPECIALLY around GameWinners.

i was not trying to imply this, only that you think they were forced if agreeing with me is he alternativeHere's another thing I never said. I said you were out gaining support, I didn't say anyone was forced into anything.

are you trying to say that you don't have enough faith in your own discretion to decide if something was over the line or not?My discretion didn't matter. I told you what I would've done had it been a member. I wanted to get Ben's opinion becuase he couldn't see the post when I asked him for it. I couldn't warn you whether or not I wanted to. But had it been a member, I would have warned for caution without question.

shortkut

August 23rd, 2006, 02:52 AM

People get warned for poorly phrased things all the time. Things that aren't spelt out get misinterpreted. Happens fairly commonly, ESPECIALLY around GameWinners.maybe we should ban for stupidity so this doesn't happen

Here's another thing I never said. I said you were out gaining support, I didn't say anyone was forced into anything.
and I'm sure your off gaining support for that cause
you said it is happening now and you implied this is not the first time

My discretion didn't matter. I told you what I would've done had it been a member. I wanted to get Ben's opinion becuase he couldn't see the post when I asked him for it. I couldn't warn you whether or not I wanted to. But had it been a member, I would have warned for caution without question.
your discretion did matter. if you felt it was ignorable, then it would have been ignored and nothing would have happened. if you felt it was warnable, then things would have happened as they did. you are saying you were unsure which it was, to me that sounds like you did not have faith in your own discretion because you could not come up with a decision on your own

Coleman

August 23rd, 2006, 03:03 AM

your discretion did matter. if you felt it was ignorable, then it would have been ignored and nothing would have happened. if you felt it was warnable, then things would have happened as they did. you are saying you were unsure which it was, to me that sounds like you did not have faith in your own discretion because you could not come up with a decision on your ownI don't know why you keep ignoring it.

If it was a member, just any other regular member. I would have warned or cautioned for it.

However because it WASN'T a member, my discretion didn't matter. Since I WOULD have warned for it given the circumstances, I passed it along to someone who could decide for themselves.

Dantilus

August 23rd, 2006, 03:08 AM

People get warned for poorly phrased things all the time. Things that aren't spelt out get misinterpreted. Happens fairly commonly, ESPECIALLY around GameWinners.Sure, but misinterpretation seems grounds for an overrule. Why should somebody get punished just because a mod needs everything spelled out for them?

DraghonCiege

August 23rd, 2006, 03:27 AM

If it was his first "mistake", I'd agree with you. He was sModded with two warnings on the books already. I'd say those count as mistakes.
If racism is a mistake I'd HATE to see what you guys call murder (an accedent maybe?)... Sorry to hear about the demotion and I hope you get you're privileges back but even I got booted from CodeBreaker.com for telling everyone I had the PS2 Hot Coffee Day1 Codes and thats not as serious... I didn't even list them and I got booted... Personnally I think they should have demoted him on the spot for that (that being the racism)... although I never saw the forum he did it in so I can't really ascertain how racist it was but hey this is coming from a white guy with a black wife... Yes the link is borderlined Ad but I read another post in here referring that it might have been helpfull in the situation... I didnt go to the link but I ASSUME it had to do with the subject being discussed and that I might have done the same thing providing it had to do with the specific topic...

Forget about it shorty- who the hell wants to be an Smod anyway? It's kind of like being a prefect in 6th year at high school; you have to do more work and no-one respects you for it anyway. I was never a prefect because I was far too busy smoking cigarettes and generally being the coolest ****er in the playground.
sorry I know its off subject here but its a quickie... High School has 4 grades; Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior... unless you goto a continuation High school cause you're slow or have a kid!

shortkut

August 23rd, 2006, 03:28 AM

I don't know why you keep ignoring it.

If it was a member, just any other regular member. I would have warned or cautioned for it.

However because it WASN'T a member, my discretion didn't matter. Since I WOULD have warned for it given the circumstances, I passed it along to someone who could decide for themselves.
unless i was misreading earlier posts, this is the first time you gave a definite response that you thought it was warnable. earlier posts had you on the fence about it which is why you asked ben, not because you did not have the authority to do anything about it. if you mentioned it in your earlier posts then i apologize for ignoring it.

Coleman

August 23rd, 2006, 03:32 AM

If it was a member who had posted the thread, I would have warned or cautioned for it.And if I said I was on the fence as to whether or not the warning should've been persued since it was borderline SPAM. If it was a member, I would've taken some kind of action. But given the circumstances, I wasn't sure if it should be persued in THIS instance.

shortkut

August 23rd, 2006, 03:34 AM

thank you for clearing that up.

DraghonCiege

August 23rd, 2006, 04:10 AM

Honestly, I doubt anyone would lose respect towards him if he was completely demodded over this...
you know why? It's cause the respect would already be gone... and i'm assuming there's no tollerences at all for the names people pick out for themselves too? (yes this is borderlined on subject) If borderline ads and rasism is not tollerated in the forums such as whatever kut was written up for I would ascertain dropping an U for an * shouldn't be tollerated either but no one is doing anything about it so is his name borderline ok?... like I was taught, "It's not what you say or type, it's what you mean." there is no borderline people... As someone said earlier, "Toe the line," meaning its either not acceptable or it is... my argument for kut is "why are links to other sites with relavent stuff not alloud but foul names only edited by 1 or 2 letters ok?" but on the other hand, he did break the rules... life's not fair... I got pulled over by a cop saying I was going 72 in a 65 zone but a person cut me off without a turn signal right in front of him... did he pull him over or call backup? no he didnt... the lesser of the 2 wrongs got pulled over, that guy coulda made me crash... in my opinion kut is the lesser of these 2 things I speak of...

Neo Matrix

August 23rd, 2006, 07:02 AM

Forget about it shorty- who the hell wants to be an Smod anyway? It's kind of like being a prefect in 6th year at high school; you have to do more work and no-one respects you for it anyway. I was never a prefect because I was far too busy smoking cigarettes and generally being the coolest ****er in the playground.sorry I know its off subject here but its a quickie... High School has 4 grades; Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior... unless you goto a continuation High school cause you're slow or have a kid!Or unless you're not from the US.Location: Glasgow, Scotland.There are 6 years to secondary (high) school in the UK for some people.

Ants!

August 23rd, 2006, 08:15 AM

Cole, the fact of the matter is that you've admitted several times that it was borderline. That means you could have gone either way with it: you can warn him if you want because it was KINDA breaking the rules, but that if you choose to let it go, that's fine to because he KINDA wasn't. Most other mods probably would have done the latter, if the ratio of mods in this thread for/against the action taken is any indication. This reminds me of something that happened in the thread announcing Vinny being banned: a member borderline trolled Vinny, and Vash let him get away with a caution (that didn't result in knee-jerk reaction such as a punishment). Later another member did this as well and Ben gave him a warning, and then threatened everybody else in the thread with warnings, just because the thread was "evolving" as you called it. While most of the staff at this sight don't mind letting their human side show and have a little compasion, you and Ben seem to take your jobs as if they were childhood fantasies of being The Punisher.

I know you say you don't care that people at this site don't like you, but I don't believe it for even one second. If you just lighten up a little, peoples image of you will soften. It's your choice man.

Lazy F*ck

August 23rd, 2006, 09:27 AM

you know why? It's cause the respect would already be gone... and i'm assuming there's no tollerences at all for the names people pick out for themselves too? (yes this is borderlined on subject) If borderline ads and rasism is not tollerated in the forums such as whatever kut was written up for I would ascertain dropping an U for an * shouldn't be tollerated either but no one is doing anything about it so is his name borderline ok?... like I was taught, "It's not what you say or type, it's what you mean." there is no borderline people... As someone said earlier, "Toe the line," meaning its either not acceptable or it is... my argument for kut is "why are links to other sites with relavent stuff not alloud but foul names only edited by 1 or 2 letters ok?" but on the other hand, he did break the rules... life's not fair... I got pulled over by a cop saying I was going 72 in a 65 zone but a person cut me off without a turn signal right in front of him... did he pull him over or call backup? no he didnt... the lesser of the 2 wrongs got pulled over, that guy coulda made me crash... in my opinion kut is the lesser of these 2 things I speak of...
Who the hell are you? No, seriously, if you used to be a member here before, then I might take a little more credence with what you say. Though obviously you're not, because you don't know the rules of the site.

Putting an asterisk in the middle of a word is censoring it. As long as there's a pretty little star in my name it's perfectly legal, and you can ask anyone on the site. In fact, it was an S-Mod who gave me the name change.

You're talking about two different things. Unlike your driving incident, having 'F*ck' in my name is perfectly okay while kut's post is the far-off equivalent of speeding.

Nice attempt at making a point, though.

DraghonCiege

August 23rd, 2006, 01:18 PM

Who the hell are you? No, seriously, if you used to be a member here before, then I might take a little more credence with what you say. Though obviously you're not, because you don't know the rules of the site.

Putting an asterisk in the middle of a word is censoring it. As long as there's a pretty little star in my name it's perfectly legal, and you can ask anyone on the site. In fact, it was an S-Mod who gave me the name change.

You're talking about two different things. Unlike your driving incident, having 'F*ck' in my name is perfectly okay while kut's post is the far-off equivalent of speeding.

Nice attempt at making a point, though.
Ithis is my 1st name here... its my 7th at codebreaker... CB has done away with that baby stuff cause they learned that like i said before its not what you say or type its what you meant...ok replacing all the last 3 letters might be ok in my book cause theres a lot og 4 letter words starting with F... and obviously we're not working with a mature person here cause I believe a mature person wouldnt have thought of a name like that... so grow up... and my point is, is that in the cop's mind speeding was greater than not using a turn signal... just like here the officials are too blind to see it too

Lazy F*ck

August 23rd, 2006, 01:59 PM

CB has done away with that baby stuff cause they learned that like i said before its not what you say or type its what you meant...
Obviously. If I say I'm a lazy f*ck, I mean it.

ok replacing all the last 3 letters might be ok in my book cause theres a lot og 4 letter words starting with F...
Like what? Food? Fool? Foul? Why have any mystery behind it? Why not just say what I want to say?

and obviously we're not working with a mature person here cause I believe a mature person wouldnt have thought of a name like that... so grow up...
You have no idea how far my immaturity can extend. How 'bout this: my name used to just be 'F*ck'. You really would've blown a gasket if you saw that, huh?

and my point is, is that in the cop's mind speeding was greater than not using a turn signal... just like here the officials are too blind to see it too
In one situation, two people are breaking the law. In the other, one's well within the rules and the other kind of almost bent them. The situations are completely different. You have no point.

The thing is, the Admins and others around here seem to think that most people who post here are mature enough to handle themselves around a so-called 'foul' words. You say I'm immature, though ironically, maturity seems to be what you lack.

*Sigh* I suppose this is what I get for posting in topic I normally wouldn't....

canadaguy

August 23rd, 2006, 07:02 PM

But had it been a member, I would have warned for caution without question.

Okay, enough with the double speak. Warned for caution? Are you saying you would have done both?

Aphrodite

August 23rd, 2006, 07:05 PM

DraghonCiege

August 23rd, 2006, 07:40 PM

I'm outta this... not cause of that "F*ck"er but because this is boring now....

Northern Lights

August 27th, 2006, 11:19 AM

The way I see it is this:

shortkut posted something on topic. The topic in question was Stargate, no?

The club is related to... wait for it... Stargate.

The thread had been bumped, meaning that nobody cared about it. Meaning that nobody wanted to talk to him about Stargate. Meaning that if he wanted to talk about Stargate, he would have to go somewhere else.

Enter shortkut. He told him where he could go to discuss Stargate. You remember Stargate, right? The subject of the topic. The subject, which somebody would have to leave to get off topic. Well, that didn't happen.

Here’s a question, Cole:

If you weren’t a former smod, would you have given two sh*ts that shortkut had told someone that he could join his clan?

Here’s an observation:

If you are so desperate to play "concerned mod" that you are going to waste your time sending a text to Ben then you really need to get out more. Seriously. Do you call him up if you get bad rep too? This isn’t a dig at you as a person… just the way you play the game.

Here’s a question about your past:

Were you the kid who used to sit at the back of the classroom just so that he could see what everyone else was doing at school? Would you raise your hand and cry if somebody was drawing on the desk?

If you’re going to be THAT strict with the rules then you’ve got to expect it to come back and bite you on the ass.

Let us use some examples not too far from home. The television forum.

This topic. (http://forums.gamewinners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=503303) She posts something directly from another site and doesn't use any of her own words. Hmm...

Then what? Oh, she bumps her own thread. Nice.

Also, for the record, crayons don’t talk back. The conversation wouldn’t be half as fun as if he were talking to, you know, real people. Good try, though.

You’ve said earlier that shortkut was trying to take activity away from the Television forum and redirect it to C+C , which is one of the most active areas at the site. You’ve also said that you only advertise Poker because it doesn’t have that many active members. Where in the rules does it say: “You can’t advertise… oh wait, unless it is an inactive part of the site. In that case, feel free.”

Even if we were going by those rules then shortkut would still deserve no caution due to the fact that he wasn’t advertising C+C. He was advertising a club, a clan, a posse, a gathering, a clique, take your choice of words.

For all you “tl;dr”s out there… shortkut has been very hard done by.

Demikain

August 27th, 2006, 01:33 PM

I'm outta this... not cause of that "F*ck"er but because this is boring now....
Now that IS against the rules.

The way I see it is this:

shortkut posted something on topic. The topic in question was Stargate, no?

The club is related to... wait for it... Stargate.

The thread had been bumped, meaning that nobody cared about it. Meaning that nobody wanted to talk to him about Stargate. Meaning that if he wanted to talk about Stargate, he would have to go somewhere else.

Enter shortkut. He told him where he could go to discuss Stargate. You remember Stargate, right? The subject of the topic. The subject, which somebody would have to leave to get off topic. Well, that didn't happen.

Here’s a question, Cole:

If you weren’t a former smod, would you have given two sh*ts that shortkut had told someone that he could join his clan?

Here’s an observation:

If you are so desperate to play "concerned mod" that you are going to waste your time sending a text to Ben then you really need to get out more. Seriously. Do you call him up if you get bad rep too? This isn’t a dig at you as a person… just the way you play the game.

Here’s a question about your past:

Were you the kid who used to sit at the back of the classroom just so that he could see what everyone else was doing at school? Would you raise your hand and cry if somebody was drawing on the desk?

If you’re going to be THAT strict with the rules then you’ve got to expect it to come back and bite you on the ass.

Let us use some examples not too far from home. The television forum.

This topic. She posts something directly from another site and doesn't use any of her own words. Hmm...

Then what? Oh, she bumps her own thread. Nice.

Also, for the record, crayons don’t talk back. The conversation wouldn’t be half as fun as if he were talking to, you know, real people. Good try, though.

You’ve said earlier that shortkut was trying to take activity away from the Television forum and redirect it to C+C , which is one of the most active areas at the site. You’ve also said that you only advertise Poker because it doesn’t have that many active members. Where in the rules does it say: “You can’t advertise… oh wait, unless it is an inactive part of the site. In that case, feel free.”

Even if we were going by those rules then shortkut would still deserve no caution due to the fact that he wasn’t advertising C+C. He was advertising a club, a clan, a posse, a gathering, a clique, take your choice of words.

For all you “tl;dr”s out there… shortkut has been very hard done by.
Basically spot on. I don't see what the need for such strict rules are. I can't even believe it's being taken so seriously by the staff.

Aphrodite

August 27th, 2006, 05:19 PM

A decent argument, but wrong on a few key points.

Coleman didn't ultimately decide it was spam, and shortkut was not demoted for that spam. Straw, camel... all that.

Mattimeo

August 27th, 2006, 10:04 PM

Why was shortkut de-smoded then, if not for being cautioned for spam?

Ants!

August 27th, 2006, 10:10 PM

And why wasn't he (or all the mods that voted for him for that matter) informed that he would be on ZT? Or I should say, EXTRA STRICT zt, since he was demotted not for a warning but a caution? And if those two previous warnings didn't make him ineligible to be an smod in the first place, then why do they suddenly matter after the fact?

Schteve

August 27th, 2006, 10:43 PM

Well, he did sort of get another caution just before this one. It's mostly common sense that you'd be on thin ice after that.

Aphrodite

August 28th, 2006, 12:16 AM

And why wasn't he (or all the mods that voted for him for that matter) informed that he would be on ZT?

He was informed when the thread saying he made smod was posted.

Northern Lights

August 28th, 2006, 06:38 AM

He was informed when the thread saying he made smod was posted.

I understand that. He was on ZT as an smod. That's fair enough. All I'm saying is that the post in question should not be classed as breaching the rules of his ZT. It isn't SPAM.

Stupid? No.

Pointless? Nope.

Annoying? Don't think so.

Message? Well, you got him on this one.

Coleman didn't ultimately decide it was spam.

No, but chances are if Ben had just signed on and seen it without Cole's involvement then he wouldn't have thought, "Hmm... I think he should be de-smodded."

Someone else is having a shot at being an smod. It is only three months. His post didn't harm anybody. It was on topic.

All of the mods voted on him becoming an smod. All of them should have voted on whether that was deserving of him losing his spot.

Cole, are you trying to say in your six months as an smod, every post of yours was 100% on topic?

It was advertising, yeah, but not just for the sake of it. IT WAS ON TOPIC.

DEFINITION OF ON TOPIC: Something being said which relates to the subject.

Any objections with my definition?

Dantilus

August 28th, 2006, 01:44 PM

It was advertising, yeah, but not just for the sake of it.My understanding of the rule is that the link has to be off-site for it to be considered advertising.

Aphrodite

August 28th, 2006, 04:59 PM

No, but chances are if Ben had just signed on and seen it without Cole's involvement then he wouldn't have thought, "Hmm... I think he should be de-smodded."

No, because Ben would never have gone to that forum and seen it.

That's what mods are for, telling the admins what to have a look at.

What are you saying, Andy? That Coleman linking Ben influenced the decision that it was wrong? That the admins didn't decide on their own?

All of the mods voted on him becoming an smod. All of them should have voted on whether that was deserving of him losing his spot.

Eh, the mods voting is the problem in the first place.

Lazy F*ck

August 28th, 2006, 07:34 PM

My understanding of the rule is that the link has to be off-site for it to be considered advertising.
That's what I always thought, as well...

Dantilus

August 28th, 2006, 10:12 PM

No, because Ben would never have gone to that forum and seen it.

That's what mods are for, telling the admins what to have a look at.

What are you saying, Andy? That Coleman linking Ben influenced the decision that it was wrong? That the admins didn't decide on their own?Most importantly he seems to be saying that it wasn't an infraction in the first place. I'd like to think the discussion should revolve more around that and less around whether or not the administrators are capable of human mistakes.

Barack Obama

August 28th, 2006, 11:17 PM

Since I'm extremely slow, I just found out shortkut wasn't an s-mod anymore.

Boo! Boo! Boo!

SythPT

August 28th, 2006, 11:20 PM

This thread seems to have the undercurrent that by bickering, squabbling, and arguing between sides will some how get shortkut re-Super Moderated. This isn't going to happen. Regardless of any possible ulterior motives in shortkut's post notification to the adminstration, the fact is shortkut has been de-Suprer Moderated.

This was decided upon by the Adminstration. If you don't like their decision that's fine. But it was their decision. If they feel shortkut does not measure up to the position of Super Moderator then they have every right to remove him from such a position.

This thread has only created animosity between individuals. This post is not an appeal to make shortkut another Super Moderator nor to keep him from ever becoming one again. This post is an appeal to shut up and deal. The decision was made by the administration. Following this term of Super Moderators shortkut will have a chance to become a Super Moderator again should the Moderators, Super Moderators, and Adminstration feel that he is worthy of the task.

The position of Super Moderator gives moderators the chance to prove themselves to the Adminstration and the rest of the site that they can handle responsibility (which can be taken into account later on in their Gamewinners career). It is not some position to be filled for the sake of popularity. The position of Super Moderator is a position for people who want to see Gamewinners thrive and grow.

Shortkut's term at Super Moderacy was cut short. He was not able to prove himself because of questionable moderation on the part of others. Back in the day, shortkut's post would have been seen as more helpful and less as spam. However, Gamewinners is not like it was 6 years ago. Gamewinners is now filled with as much plot and intrigue as the United States political system.

The fact is the Adminstration faced a difficult decision, which had two choices:
1) They could let the caution for shortkut's post go and allow him to continue being a Super Moderator.
OR
2) Remove shortkut for this term of Super Moderacy as a form of enforcing the two warnings and two cautions.

Option 1: Would leave the Administration open to accusations of nepotism by groups who feel slighted by the Administration in the past and thereby find reason to try and remove them from their position or cast doubt on their decision making process.

Option 2: This option would generate some negative feelings towards the Administration. However, it would also ensure that the current rules were enforced at Gamewinner regardless of any personal feelings on part of the individual Administrators.

Option 2 was chosen in the hopes that the public would understand that shortkut's de-Super Moderatoring would be fair to all parties. That is to those people who feel he deserve to be punished for his "SPAM" post and those who thinks he deserves to be a moderator. Sometimes people have to do things to they do not agree with for the greater good. Does this make them tyrants? No. It makes them fair and impartial.

Will shortkut become a Super Moderator next term? No one knows for sure. The fact is bickering, arguing, and squabbling have accomplished nothing to benefit Gamewinners. Shortkut is still a Moderator and that fact is not changing. Let the issue drop.

The funny thing is everyone but shortkut is up in arms about his de-Super Moderating. Shortkut accepted this outcome, why can't you?

Tom

August 29th, 2006, 05:06 AM

Eh, the mods voting is the problem in the first place.

You think admins should just appoint like the old days? Brilliant! Then we can have you and Coleman and the world will be a better place! :tease:

Northern Lights

August 29th, 2006, 07:05 AM

Option 1: Would leave the Administration open to accusations of nepotism by groups who feel slighted by the Administration in the past and thereby find reason to try and remove them from their position or cast doubt on their decision making process.

Actually, considering that very few people seem to think that the caution was called for, they probably wouldn't be that bothered. That and the fact that Television was called by young Cole "One of the least active parts of the site" combine to mean that chances are, apart from Cole, nobody cared.

What are you saying, Andy? That Coleman linking Ben influenced the decision that it was wrong? That the admins didn't decide on their own?

Did Coleman's linking influence Ben? Almost certainly. If it was just some regular member asking if it was SPAM, I'm not convinced that Ben would have taken it further. This isn't a jab at anybody in particular. Favouritism is natural.

The admins can decide on their own. Personally, I don't think that they made the right decision on this occasion. That's why I'll keep expressing my opinions on the matter. And to sum it up, we have a quote from Dan.

Since I'm extremely slow, I just found out shortkut wasn't an s-mod anymore.

Boo! Boo! Boo!

Thanks Dan and goodnight.

Aphrodite

August 29th, 2006, 07:22 AM

Ben

August 29th, 2006, 07:41 AM

Did Coleman's linking influence Ben? Almost certainly. If it was just some regular member asking if it was SPAM, I'm not convinced that Ben would have taken it further. This isn't a jab at anybody in particular. Favouritism is natural.You seem to have missed the part where I said that Coleman didn't tell me that the member he was reporting was a smod until after I'd given my opinion regarding whether or not said post would warrant a warning, and didn't even tell me that it was Erik until after I still said it would warrant a warning.

Coleman: If someone were to post in a thread in the TV forum and only advertise a clan in C+C and not post anything relevant would that be a warning?
Me: Certainly.
Coleman: What if that person happens to be an sMod
Me: Then I'll warn them myself. PM me a link, I'll be home in an hour or two.
Coleman: Ok.
Me: Which smod?
Coleman: Erik
Me: Figures. Ok, I'll check it out when I'm home.
Coleman: Just to let you know. This would be his third warning since Februay and his second since June.
Me: Yeah, I know that he's had a lot of warnings lately. That's dissappionting.
Coleman: The thread was also almost nine months old. His post wasn't the bump but he was responding to a post from a long time ago.
>> I decided to open my phone's browser and find the thread for myself <<
Me: Tricky... It's both off topic and on topic. The first post mentions SG-1. But there also was no need for him to try to divert traffic from TV to his clan. I'll get a hold of Vash later today and the admins will discuss it.
Coleman: KAnd I take offence to your claims that just because I have any semblance of a friendship with Coleman, that I'm automatically going to agree with whatever he says, and it proves you don't know diddly-squat about me as a person. I don't play that kind of crap.

SythPT

August 29th, 2006, 08:26 AM

Actually, considering that very few people seem to think that the caution was called for, they probably wouldn't be that bothered. That and the fact that Television was called by young Cole "One of the least active parts of the site" combine to mean that chances are, apart from Cole, nobody cared.

Very few people? This thread has only had what 30 people post in it? Man, that is quite a sampling of an eighty-eight thousand member site. After quickly skimming the topic again 12 people come right out and said they disagreed with shortkut's de-Super Moderating (This number does not reflect "Well, if you had done this then there wouldn't be a problem" or "If you guys think its best" posts). Now if we take away Ben's vote, Shortkut's vote and Coleman's vote just for impartiality sake. That leaves twelve of twenty seven people against shortkut's de-Super Moderating. Now let's apply this percentage of against to the actual population of Gamewinners. The number of people against shortkut's de-Super Moderating is 39,100. Now, if it was the majority that wanted to keep shortkut as an Super Moderator, great, but 39 thousand isn't the majority.

To think that people like Coleman wouldn't use shortkut's re-Super Moderating as an excuse to cry and scream nepotism in the Administration, then what Gamewinners have you been visiting? Hell, you're using shortkut de-Super Moderating as a way of accusing Ben of nepotism.

The thing that you do not seem to get is that Super Moderators are under the eye of the Administration, if they do not feel someone is pulling their weight or is giving the title of Super Moderator a bad name then they have every right to remove them.

Demikain

August 29th, 2006, 09:05 AM

Very few people? This thread has only had what 30 people post in it? Man, that is quite a sampling of an eighty-eight thousand member site. After quickly skimming the topic again 12 people come right out and said they disagreed with shortkut's de-Super Moderating (This number does not reflect "Well, if you had done this then there wouldn't be a problem" or "If you guys think its best" posts). Now if we take away Ben's vote, Shortkut's vote and Coleman's vote just for impartiality sake. That leaves twelve of twenty seven people against shortkut's de-Super Moderating. Now let's apply this percentage of against to the actual population of Gamewinners. The number of people against shortkut's de-Super Moderating is 39,100. Now, if it was the majority that wanted to keep shortkut as an Super Moderator, great, but 39 thousand isn't the majority.

To think that people like Coleman wouldn't use shortkut's re-Super Moderating as an excuse to cry and scream nepotism in the Administration, then what Gamewinners have you been visiting? Hell, you're using shortkut de-Super Moderating as a way of accusing Ben of nepotism.

The thing that you do not seem to get is that Super Moderators are under the eye of the Administration, if they do not feel someone is pulling their weight or is giving the title of Super Moderator a bad name then they have every right to remove them.
You think that there are 80,000 ACTIVE members on GW?

lol

Barack Obama

August 29th, 2006, 09:19 AM

Okay, so this time around, I actually read the post in question. I bet shortkut didn't notice it was a year old. He was trying to give the guy somewhere to go to discuss a show he liked. He should've done it via PM, but I don't think doing that alone warrants a warning like that. The thread started talking about Stargate, it's not like he led him to the K For C Revolution.

There's really no use in arguing, it's like when the umpire throws the manager out in baseball. Decisions been made, all we can do is walk back down to the clubhouse.

SythPT

August 29th, 2006, 09:19 AM

I was using it as an example. Being that I did not want to say, "Twelve thousand people are active." This way I used a number that has actually significance. Regardless of how many active members thee are the majproty still wouldn't be behind shortkut from this sampling.

Demikain

August 29th, 2006, 09:21 AM

SythPT

August 29th, 2006, 09:38 AM

I'm going to disagree with you here. I reckon most people would look at it like the bullsh*t that it is.

Northern Lights used this thread as asampling to say that people would be against shortkut's de-Super Moderating. I used the thread to show that 12 people (less than half) actually came out and disagreed with the decision to de-Super Moderate shortkut.

Hell, I've talked with shortkut while the majority of this went on and he understands why he was de-Super Moderated and he accepts the fact that he is.

To say "The majority of people would say this because they would of course agree with my opinion" is quite silly. You can't say that people would vote a certain way because you believe a certain thing.

You might accuse me of doing the same thing, however, I used this thread, like Northern Lights, as a sampling.

Barack Obama

August 29th, 2006, 09:44 AM

It doesn't matter who comes out to disagree with it. Hell, I don't read forum announcements at all, it's a wonder how I found this one.

If it was brought to everyones attention, you'd see.

Northern Lights

August 29th, 2006, 10:19 AM

Coleman: If someone were to post in a thread in the TV forum and only advertise a clan in C+C and not post anything relevant would that be a warning?

Well, sir, I think that you are being a little biased against Erik considering the small fact that the clan was relevant. You make it sound like there was a topic about favourite tv shows and the "member" left a message saying "Yeah, but you know, who gives a f*ck? Wouldn't you much rather have an RP battle? Well now you can. Oh yeah... F*CK TV!"

Me: Which smod?
Coleman: Erik
Me: Figures. Ok, I'll check it out when I'm home.

So you already assume that it was Erik? Just because he has a past record? How prejudiced you are. :D

Okay, that wasn't a serious comment.

Me: Yeah, I know that he's had a lot of warnings lately. That's dissappionting.

No, what is disappointing is that you took something, which was borderline SPAM, (borderline meaning that it was acceptable, but only just.) and turned into a GW incident.

IF you had said, "Yeah, that is SPAM." instead of "Well, it is borderline" or whatever then it wouldn't be so hard to believe that you have de-smodded him. The fact that you used the word borderline points out that it was, infact, acceptable.

There was obviously something wrong with it, I'm not denying that, but a slap on the wrist and telling him that he is getting close to entering SPAM territory would have been a much better thing to do.

Demikain

August 29th, 2006, 10:55 AM

Northern Lights used this thread as asampling to say that people would be against shortkut's de-Super Moderating. I used the thread to show that 12 people (less than half) actually came out and disagreed with the decision to de-Super Moderate shortkut.

Hell, I've talked with shortkut while the majority of this went on and he understands why he was de-Super Moderated and he accepts the fact that he is.

To say "The majority of people would say this because they would of course agree with my opinion" is quite silly. You can't say that people would vote a certain way because you believe a certain thing.

You might accuse me of doing the same thing, however, I used this thread, like Northern Lights, as a sampling.
Of course it's silly, that's why I said nothing of the sort. I said that I think most people wouldn't think it was a good decision.