Detention Block AA-23 : The OT.com's Banned Members... — Page 45

All I know is the community certainly won’t behave themselves simply to keep him from being spoiled by moderating it.

This was a much easier job before the new movies. Damn you Disney! Damn you to heck!
😉

Possessed said:

SilverWook said:

chyron8472 said:

SilverWook said:

As Jay pays for this forum out of his own pocket, (we haven’t even had advertising in years) he doesn’t owe you guys a darn thing.

I didn’t say that. I meant he runs a Star Wars forum and therefore it would behoove him to watch a Star Wars film before the site inevitably spoils it for him.

Those pesky things like jobs and family do get in the way.

All I’m saying is that I have seen the movie so I ought to be made temporary admin for the time being and I definitely won’t do anything crazy like ban all the mods and Jay in the meantime and enact rules against making posts without a mandatory picture of a cat doing something funny in every post.

That’s not a crazy idea. Like a sheriff appointing temporary deputies. Maybe something we can test out with the Han Solo movie next year?

Jay can’t be banned. I have tried, as part of testing the forum software of course. 😛

Possessed said:

SilverWook said:

chyron8472 said:

SilverWook said:

As Jay pays for this forum out of his own pocket, (we haven’t even had advertising in years) he doesn’t owe you guys a darn thing.

I didn’t say that. I meant he runs a Star Wars forum and therefore it would behoove him to watch a Star Wars film before the site inevitably spoils it for him.

Those pesky things like jobs and family do get in the way.

All I’m saying is that I have seen the movie so I ought to be made temporary admin for the time being and I definitely won’t do anything crazy like ban all the mods and Jay in the meantime and enact rules against making posts without a mandatory picture of a cat doing something funny in every post.

SilverWook said:

Possessed said:

SilverWook said:

chyron8472 said:

SilverWook said:

As Jay pays for this forum out of his own pocket, (we haven’t even had advertising in years) he doesn’t owe you guys a darn thing.

I didn’t say that. I meant he runs a Star Wars forum and therefore it would behoove him to watch a Star Wars film before the site inevitably spoils it for him.

Those pesky things like jobs and family do get in the way.

All I’m saying is that I have seen the movie so I ought to be made temporary admin for the time being and I definitely won’t do anything crazy like ban all the mods and Jay in the meantime and enact rules against making posts without a mandatory picture of a cat doing something funny in every post.

That’s not a crazy idea. Like a sheriff appointing temporary deputies.

“I shot the sheriff… but. I. did. not. shoot. the. dep-u-teee…”

Warbler said:

Did the guy even get a warning for using the r-word?

No, but he did make a large public apology and agree to never use the word again.

As I said, this one incident alone is probably not singularly why Frink was banned.

DominicCobb said:

ray_afraid said:

Warbler said:

Did the guy even get a warning for using the r-word?

No, but he did make a large public apology and agree to never use the word again.

He apologized only after Frink was banned, presumably to cover his ass. Frink was banned without being given a chance for an apology. Neither were given warnings, far as I can tell.

Further evidence to the unequal treatment case.

chyron8472 said:

As I said, this one incident alone is probably not singularly why Frink was banned.

Even if so, the rules are still not being applied equally.

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

As I said, this one incident alone is probably not singularly why Frink was banned.

Even if so, the rules are still not being applied equally.

You don’t know that. You assume unequal treatment because you don’t have enough information to ascertain why one was banned and the other was not. You don’t know what the entire reasoning was for banning Frink, so you can’t objectively say it was unfair.

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

As I said, this one incident alone is probably not singularly why Frink was banned.

Even if so, the rules are still not being applied equally.

You don’t know that. You assume unequal treatment because you don’t have enough information to ascertain why one was banned and the other was not. There may be a legitimate reason, just the mods aren’t communicating it.

Alright. The mods just aren’t communicating it. That’s also a problem.

Why is it our business to know he was on thin ice, though? Ought that to be between him and the mods?

chyron8472 said:

Why is it our business to know he was on thin ice, though? Ought that to be between him and the mods?

The mods have no problem with notifying people of their on-thin-ice-edness in public.

I can see the problem of us not knowing if we are on thin ice, but maybe he knew because they told him but he didn’t tell us. Hence the reason why he posted here before he was banned.

Yeah, about that…

ChainsawAsh said:

Frink? Whoa…

TV’s Frink said:

Been nice knowing you guys.

It was known for about two minutes that Frink was banned before he posted. I assume it’s just some technical glitch that allowed that to happen.

DominicCobb said:

chyron8472 said:

As I said, this one incident alone is probably not singularly why Frink was banned.

Still, all I’m asking for is more transparency. Had the mods made it clear he was on thin ice, then it wouldn’t be a problem. But if he did things that came close to breaking the rules yet the mods never said anything, they can’t just retroactively use them as a strike against him.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Jay decides to ban me after reading that thread for similar reasons.

I like how we’re making two separate points but eventually landing at the same conclusion. Your point is better, though.

yhwx said:

It was known for about two minutes that Frink was banned before he posted. I assume it’s just some technical glitch that allowed that to happen.

Oh.

When you’re banned, they restrict access to your account so you can’t log in (speaking from experience). I imagine adding someone to the Banned Users group is a separate step in adminCP compared to restricting their login. So maybe he knew (and posted) because there was a 2 minute window between them adding him to Banned Users and blocking his login access.

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

It was known for about two minutes that Frink was banned before he posted. I assume it’s just some technical glitch that allowed that to happen.

Oh.

When you’re banned, they restrict access to your account so you can’t log in (speaking from experience). I imagine adding someone to the Banned Users group is a separate step in adminCP compared to restricting their login. So maybe he knew (and posted) because there was a 2 minute window between them adding him to Banned Users and blocking his login access.

Looking through the code (it’s publicly available; don’t worry, I’m not a hacker), it seems that when you’re banned, your login privileges are also automatically revoked. That being as it is, I’m not sure how Frink could post there. Voodoo, I guess.

I don’t know how it works for other forums, but here it’s actually a one step process. Push the button, Frank. What happened last night is a mystery as I got a PM after his icon got the red slash.

Maybe the magical flying forum elves™ are hopped up on eggnog.