Question on ban announcements

[vcs]

LOL Google are kinda dumb paying for those tiny ads that you have to look twice to even spot. It's not even one of those big annoying banners you see from Betway, Hotstar, Rummy Circles etc.

 

[Daemon]

Total Alphabet 2019 revenues reached nearly $162 billion. Google advertising revenues accounted for $134.8 billion, with YouTube contributing $15 billion for the year.

Hmm real dumb

Google isn’t paying for them ftr, quite the opposite

 

[Prince EWS]

LOL Google are kinda dumb paying for those tiny ads that you have to look twice to even spot. It's not even one of those big annoying banners you see from Betway, Hotstar, Rummy Circles etc.

View attachment 25385

The ad that appears the Betway banner is also a google thing I think.

 

[vcs]

Stop with the serious replies guys, I have zero clue about their ad words business (apart from that it's hugely profitable) and no interest in finding out how it works

 

[duffer]

Sorry Dad

heh

 

[Furball]

"The message" Dan was talking about was in reference to the numerous warnings we gave the members he was talking about. So yes, it was broadcast to them via those warnings and then infractions before the actual bans. We haven't made a general announcement about it because we didn't want to make a big deal out of a handful of posters -- we contacted them specifically with warnings.

In terms of the "harder line" he mentioned, I guess we have, but

1. It's always been in the rules, we've just been trying to enforce it a bit more the couple of weeks

2. The reason we've been trying to enforce it a bit more isn't because the Google Ads policy changed, but because the nature of the posting in Off Topic has. In days gone by sometimes a ***ual reference would appear kind of organically as a response to something and it'd be fine because they were relatively rare, but at the moment a handful of people seem to have decided that making ***ual references is funny in itself, and are trying to make as many as possible just for the sake of it. This has meant we've had a lot more of them, which puts us in the firing line of the Google Ads policy in a way that we weren't before.

I don't speak for all the mods, but I genuinely couldn't care less on a personal level how many ***ual references people make on the forum. But if Google flagged us and decided we couldn't have ads anymore... and then James had to pay for that revenue gap out of pocket because a few people thought it was funny... then yeah I'd care a lot about that.

That would be pretty funny tbf.

 

[Gnske]

"The message" Dan was talking about was in reference to the numerous warnings we gave the members he was talking about. So yes, it was broadcast to them via those warnings and then infractions before the actual bans. We haven't made a general announcement about it because we didn't want to make a big deal out of a handful of posters -- we contacted them specifically with warnings.

2. The reason we've been trying to enforce it a bit more isn't because the Google Ads policy changed, but because the nature of the posting in Off Topic has. In days gone by sometimes a ***ual reference would appear kind of organically as a response to something and it'd be fine because they were relatively rare, but at the moment a handful of people seem to have decided that making ***ual references is funny in itself, and are trying to make as many as possible just for the sake of it. This has meant we've had a lot more of them, which puts us in the firing line of the Google Ads policy in a way that we weren't before.

You really should have made that announcement. It could have been so easy too, you could have worded better but here look:

Hi All,

As some of you have noticed, there is a new trend of smut being produced in Off Topic through particular posts and threads.

While we are happy to let the odd reference fly if it is funny, this new pattern of posting smut and references to particular film stars is problematic not only for the atmosphere but in terms of revenue. We could seriously get in trouble with the Google Ads policy if we let this pattern continue, as such we request everyone please desist in continuing to make posts, create threads and derail threads with smutty and ***ual content.

Given you have all been warned we will be cracking down on ***ual references for the time being. I understand its a boring time as many of you are in COVID-19 lockdown but find other ways to have fun, please. It's not that hard to enjoy CricketWeb after all!

Got any questions, shoot away friends.

Kind Regards

PEWS

Maybe a bit more detail, but you're not castigating anyone by simply addressing the theme of posting. But two reasons why you should have done it. The messages at least I have got, have been no more descript than the usual brief ones I get.

The next one will earn you a much longer ban. I don't think we can be any clearer - cut it out.

Now I read that as, I've got more than a few infraction points and I've made 15 smutty posts too many than I should have today, Dan's brain has broken. I've seen it before and I'll see it again probably.

The big and other reason is that moderating duties extend beyond what buttons reside within the infractions tab.

Engage with the community and be not fearful of it, personally and on a group level. We're not proud just rowdy. I think we respond far better to engagement than coldness and presumption of having the mandate of god. I'm only too happy to seriously stop for the good of the forum though, especially since this is the second time PEWS that you've had to intervene to bring a complete sense of clarity of a fiasco this year.

 

[Gnske]

I also realise that post is far too long for an issue that can be reduced to "please just follow the rules" on a vBulletin board.

But also what excitement is there in life if you can't spike your girlfriend's 5 year old's juice with absinthe, watch him stumble around her flat drunk as a mongoose, barfing up buckets in the hospital and expect to get away with it.

 

[Adders]

FMD Gnske, sometimes you simply amaze me. That was perfect.

 

[Neptune]

"The message" Dan was talking about was in reference to the numerous warnings we gave the members he was talking about. So yes, it was broadcast to them via those warnings and then infractions before the actual bans. We haven't made a general announcement about it because we didn't want to make a big deal out of a handful of posters -- we contacted them specifically with warnings.

In terms of the "harder line" he mentioned, I guess we have, but

1. It's always been in the rules, we've just been trying to enforce it a bit more the couple of weeks

2. The reason we've been trying to enforce it a bit more isn't because the Google Ads policy changed, but because the nature of the posting in Off Topic has. In days gone by sometimes a ***ual reference would appear kind of organically as a response to something and it'd be fine because they were relatively rare, but at the moment a handful of people seem to have decided that making ***ual references is funny in itself, and are trying to make as many as possible just for the sake of it. This has meant we've had a lot more of them, which puts us in the firing line of the Google Ads policy in a way that we weren't before.

I don't speak for all the mods, but I genuinely couldn't care less on a personal level how many ***ual references people make on the forum. But if Google flagged us and decided we couldn't have ads anymore... and then James had to pay for that revenue gap out of pocket because a few people thought it was funny... then yeah I'd care a lot about that.

You’ve never given me any warnings on this site, I went straight to infractions and then a ban. I think I deserve an apology, I mean I never knew writing a cuss word on someone else’s profile was worthy of infractions, you should’ve warned me first. Think I deserve an apology from the moderators tbh, unjust af.

 

[Shady Slim]

You’ve never given me any warnings on this site, I went straight to infractions and then a ban. I think I deserve an apology, I mean I never knew writing a cuss word on someone else’s profile was worthy of infractions, you should’ve warned me first. Think I deserve an apology from the moderators tbh, unjust af.

don't want to backseat mod or be a bootlicker or anything but you're not gonna curry any favour with the mods if you storm in here with "i think i deserve an apology, you should have warned me, unjust af" when there are really way more pragmatic ways you can go about it that don't make you seem like an huge asshat, just have a think about it my guy because you seem like a decent bloke

 

[harsh.ag]

don't want to backseat mod or be a bootlicker or anything but you're not gonna curry any favour with the mods if you storm in here with "i think i deserve an apology, you should have warned me, unjust af" when there are really way more pragmatic ways you can go about it that don't make you seem like an huge asshat, just have a think about it my guy because you seem like a decent bloke

Why not - look at Gimp and Burgey

 

[Shady Slim]

Why not - look at Gimp and Burgey

"you have to earn the right to be aggressive"

 

[Neptune]

don't want to backseat mod or be a bootlicker or anything but you're not gonna curry any favour with the mods if you storm in here with "i think i deserve an apology, you should have warned me, unjust af" when there are really way more pragmatic ways you can go about it that don't make you seem like an huge asshat, just have a think about it my guy because you seem like a decent bloke

I’ve asked them and mentioned this to them before, I got no reply. The more no replies I get, the angrier I’m getting. Believe me you don’t like me when I’m angry . It’s most likely because I’m a newish member, get rid of me quickly and without consequences. Getting angry thinking about it tbh.

 

[Neptune]

I’m actually surprised and flattered you said I came of as a likeable bloke. I always thought I came off as a bit of a nutter and a strange bloke so thank you for the compliment. Self awareness at its fineness huh.

 

[Shady Slim]

I’ve asked them and mentioned this to them before, I got no reply. The more no replies I get, the angrier I’m getting. Believe me you don’t like me when I’m angry . It’s most likely because I’m a newish member, get rid of me quickly and without consequences. Getting angry thinking about it tbh.

i get you but if you run in all guns blazing and start calling for an apology and draw their ire you're likely to be looking at even more time on the shelf if you offend again, because mods are (arguably, arguably) people too and don't like to be called out unreasonably

now enough of this absolute deferral to authority from me ffs i'm starting to sound like DL

 

[Shady Slim]

I’m actually surprised and flattered you said I came of as a likeable bloke. I always thought I came off as a bit of a nutter and a strange bloke so thank you for the compliment. Self awareness at its fineness huh.

look you can be both a likeable bloke and a bit of a nutter, if we were all the same the forum would be a boring place (though there would be merit to certain users taking a holiday in the middle of a highway, you are not one of those posters)

 

[honestbharani]

I’ve asked them and mentioned this to them before, I got no reply. The more no replies I get, the angrier I’m getting. Believe me you don’t like me when I’m angry . It’s most likely because I’m a newish member, get rid of me quickly and without consequences. Getting angry thinking about it tbh.

 

[cpr]

Yeah I get the family friendly bit, it's always been there. Like a family member I've always been aware of its presence and tried to ignore the irritating runt anyway.

But the Google Ads bit is a new angle, that IMO should definitely been communicated wider. What's the point of just telling those who fall foul of it, it prevents nothing, and doesn't stop the next person (which could've been me - I've had no warnings for my potty mouth after all) breaking it too. When does the point of warning so many people after they've done it become one too many for the revenue stream? Bailing the water out of a boat only keeps it afloat so long, at some point you've gotta tackle the hole ( - see, should've warned me)



----
Edit: A perfect example of this - you've rightly deleted a post of mine overnight with overt tones. I posted it because I wasn't aware (i posted it half an hour before Dan explained things), and yet I've still not had a warning from the mods as to why it was deleted, and why it can't stay - the only reason I know is because I stumbled on Dan's comments in this thread and interacted with them.

 

[Gnske]

He only has 15 minutes a day, he probably ran out of time to give you a warning.