The Joys of Overzealous Moderators

[Edi]

You can hold the opinion that it is silly to edit out the sig contents from Executor's post, but you can't argue about the consistency of removing a negative statement that was removed from the sig of a member who also got banned for it.

The reason I edited it out is that Executor should not run the risk of being punished for relaying a message to me in good faith, especially since he (or anyone else for that matter) had never been made aware of the particulars explained in my the post where I laid the reasoning out. Removing part of that message accomplishes that purpose and now that the instructions about relaying messages from banned members are laid out, they should be followed. However, I did not feel that things posted before it was explicitly explained need to be removed.

I have discussed this incident with the administrators of the forum and I know exactly how it looks from both sides of it and I understand the why of it from both sides. I'm just trying to make damn sure this crap doesn't get any worse, so I would appreciate it if you refrained from pouring more gasoline on the flames.

[PriestyMan]

Okay, but my question is why does Exec get a warning about that, but Calahan didnt get any warning to edit his signature? i'm sure if someone had asked him he would have changed it immediatly

[rdonj]

Edi - thank you for making the situation a bit more transparent, and looking out for us. I can't take offense to what you've done, but I'm finding myself increasingly frustrated with and intolerant of shrapnel's backwards policies. I don't really expect the outcome of this banning to be changed and never did. Because shrapnel has a thing for sticking to their guns. But it is very gratifying to hear someone more or less on the inside saying that shrapnel is wrong. Hopefully one day they too will recognize that.

[PriestyMan]

Originally Posted by PriestyMan

Okay, but my question is why does Exec get a warning about that, but Calahan didnt get any warning to edit his signature? i'm sure if someone had asked him he would have changed it immediatly

This is all i want to know

[Sigil Runestone]

Originally Posted by PriestyMan

This is all i want to know

I think Edi made this clear: Agree with the punishment or not, Calahan's sig seems to havecrossed an obvious forum policy, while Executors actions crossed a much less apparent policy. Therefore Edi, justly, edit the post and clarified the policy.

Please note, I am firmly in the Calahan camp but am just answering the question.

Sigil

[Edi]

Originally Posted by PriestyMan

Okay, but my question is why does Exec get a warning about that, but Calahan didnt get any warning to edit his signature? i'm sure if someone had asked him he would have changed it immediatly

Executor did not get a warning issued against him! His message post just got edited to remove that part and then there was a public explanation of why it was done and an appeal for everyone not to do that in the future. As in, a more a detailed clarification about how the policy is going to be interpreted in the future, but no ex post facto enforcement of said interpretation to past posts (aside from removing the sig quote).

I believe I also explained how things turned out because the moderators were absent. Had I not been absent, I would have asked Calahan to remove the sig, just like llamabeast would have done had he been around. I never had any problems with Calahan when I had to ask him to do something or refrain from doing something, so I agree with you that it would probably have solved the issue.

However, the administrators had to make the decision they did on the information they had, which was not the same information that would have been at my and llamabeast's disposal.

[Soyweiser]

Edi: I sometimes post irc logs that answer questions that get asked here. The people that answer the question are banned. Am I not allowed to do that?

(I leave the nicknames visible in the irc logs to provide proper attribution).

[Korwin]

Originally Posted by Soyweiser

Edi: I sometimes post irc logs that answer questions that get asked here. The people that answer the question are banned. Am I not allowed to do that?

(I leave the nicknames visible in the irc logs to provide proper attribution).

Posting an link to z7 with the answers there sounds like an solution...?

[Soyweiser]

Originally Posted by Korwin

Posting an link to z7 with the answers there sounds like an solution...?

I don't see how that is different in any way from just posting the text. It is still allowing the banned users a voice.

Also, sounds like a lot of work. (it is already done in places).

[shonuf]

But - the forum administrators are here for the players, right?

And if a majority of the active playerbase thinks that it was a bad decision to ban somebody over something as petty as a forum signature, it is pretty clear that the forum administrators are doing a **** job of looking after the interests of the people actually using the forum.

And what is putting "fuel on the fire" is not people posting about it, it is some administrator being a donkey and refusing to go back and change an obviously crappy decision.