Censor stuff and moderation

[Sanz]

Btw - All I see in that DD thread is Benchy and his friends having a go at Eddie and one can definately see it has less to do with them not liking his posts and more to do with their personal grudge against him.

Oh and I was never a big fan of Eddie or DD.

 

[Burpey]

Btw - All I see in that DD thread is Benchy and his friends having a go at Eddie and one can definately see it has less to do with them not liking his posts and more to do with their personal grudge against him.

Oh and I was never a big fan of Eddie or DD.

Not liking his posts and having a grudge can come hand in hand, no?

 

[Loony BoB]

Things that happened months ago aren't exactly going to be punished now. Things have changed since then - if we punished people for things they did before the change in how efficiently the rules were enforced, then a lot more people would probably be permanently banned by now. Doing such a thing would just be silly. I haven't seen anyone else bring up every single rulebreaking post that has been made in the past five years and asking for punishments.

Also, Eddie's post didn't directly insult anyone. He didn't say he insulted staff members, just said he had a go at them unfairly. He also didn't say where he did that - could have been on MSN for all I know. Either way, doesn't matter for the reason I mentioned at the start of this post.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Err, nobody is saying LE should be banned. It'd be just as stupid as Murphy being banned, it's just a matter of enforcing the rules equally for everyone.

Anyway, I don't really see why the time he made the post matters. We're talking about a permanant ban, not a warning or something, and the only real difference between them (other than the fact that Eddie edited some of his offensive remarks out of his posts later on) is that Murphy's stated reason for leaving was the moderation policies rather than people not liking his posts.

 

[Loony BoB]

Repeated breaking of the rules post-7-day-ban is pretty much heading towards a longer ban, however long that is would be decided on a case-by-case basis by the mod team. What happened before the change in how the rules were enforced is irrelevant so the two situations can't be compared. Likewise, people who will get banned in the future for constant disregard of the rules after a 7-day-ban will also probably look to years back when this didn't happen, but that was then, this is now. I don't think that's very hard to accept/understand at all.

 

[marc71178]

Err, nobody is saying LE should be banned. It'd be just as stupid as Murphy being banned, it's just a matter of enforcing the rules equally for everyone.

When the rules are broken equally then that is a valid point, however in this case they clearly aren't.

 

[lord_of_darkness]

I dont see what the fuss is all about Eddie.. he has broken no rule fuller..

 

[James]

What an absolute joke in comparing one of the legends of Cricket Web in Eddie who gave up his time and contributed hundreds of hours to Cricket Web on all fronts to someone who just set out to cause trouble and not contribute positively to the forums.

Dan (Loony BoB) has said exactly what I was going to mod wise so I'll stop here, but I just can't help but laugh at how pathetic the past couple of pages have been to compare these two members.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

If Murphy broke rules by criticising other members, complaining about the state of the forum and leaving, I don't see how Eddie didn't. Frankly I don't think either of them should be banned, but it's absolutely ridiculous how the mods consistently target certain people and utterly ignore the behaviour of others.

Incidentally, I don't see how the time investment is relevant. Both of them had thousands of posts here and were well known members of the forums. The fact that Eddie was a staff member isn't really irrelevant, unless they're meant to recieve preferential treatment.

 

[Loony BoB]

I don't know either enough to have any personal attachment to either, as both James and (seemingly enough) Fuller do. However I can say that to compare the two situations is a bit of a joke given that one was full of insults and the other, as far as I can see, was not. Even if it was, the major point I brought up before and stand by is that that was then, this is now. Anyone who thinks that things are the same as they always have been with regards to how the rules are enforced is kidding themselves after they've spent the last two weeks criticising those exact changes that they're now neglecting when comparing such posts.

We do target people, though. We target the people who break rules consistently. Funny, that.

 

[Sanz]

Err, nobody is saying LE should be banned. .

That's exactly what you said :-

.....show some consistency and ban LE as well...

Anyways, It is just an absolute Joke to compare LE's situation with Murphy's.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I don't really care anymore, Murphy obviously wanted to be banned.

In any case, it's also a joke to say that Darren never contributed to the forums.

 

[marc71178]

If Murphy broke rules by criticising other members, complaining about the state of the forum and leaving, I don't see how Eddie didn't.

You've never once provided anything to show how the 2 cases are comparable.

Yet you ask for consistency...

 

[Slow Love™]

Yeah, I'm also finding the reaching attempts to establish some kind of equivalency between how luckyeddie left the site and how benchmark left the site, in the name of "consistency" pretty depressing.

I didn't really get along with luckyeddie either (in fact, I got the distinct vibe that he disliked me), but this line of argument is basically an insult to everybody's intelligence. So I'm not going to waste my time debating it.

I trust most posters here to be able to tell the difference, and understand why benchmark was banned and LE wasn't. Though the moderators have shown a lack of consistency in some areas, I feel this was something that James got right.

 

[Nate]

We do target people, though. We target the people who break rules consistently. Funny, that.

Hardest person to like, I swear.

LE - got annoyed at Bench, had a bit of a whinge, nothing wrong with that.
Bench - broke some rules, but was honest. We don`t want that though, so we gave the EDIT a ban. Disgraceful. And to say Darren didn`t contribute is just stupid. Grow a EDIT. The guy couldn`t have been nicer to those who contributed well and was a comic genius. His obvious impact on the place was demonstrated by other members after he was banned.

If we`re going to ban people for being honest, and generally getting heated about some borderline rules, I`m not going to be part of it. We have some posters consistently being aggressive towards others, but that`s just over-looked, because they don`t swear. Some of the things Sanz and others have said recently are way out of line, but seems to go un-noticed. But let`s not leave this open for discussion, and send e-mails so it`s all on the quiet, I know. Hopeless.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Patrick is back with a bang.

What a guy... wait.

 

[Nate]

For the record Towns, if you`re going to be a douchebag about everything, go ahead and stick by your rules. But don`t you dare pretend to be everyone`s friend and then when they`re gone make snide and cheeky comments behind their back. I really have no respect for you as a person, and you should damn well think about what you`re trying to achieve. Be the best moderator you can be, but say what you have to say in the ******* open.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I'll fly the Bracken flag when you're banned, Patto.

 

[Nate]

Guess I can understand if I get banned again. Just don`t understand some of the double-standards on this forum. Nightprowler`s avatar = family-friendly for sure. Friendly banter =

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Meh I wouldn't ban you but I'm not James. All you've done so far is avoid the filter and abuse someone, but not with profanity so I can't see why you'd be banned. Though I'm expecting it, tbh.