Issue

Not gonna lie, Che made me crack a few times, especially when he mocked me over those I have killed. I don't blame someone for biting back at Che.

I cant even remember the amount of times he has called me a retard and wished for my death

About 375,000 times.

thanks for keeping count

Now I'm not one to put words in peoples mouths, but what Toast seems to be calling for is that the mods adopt a more business like etiquette when dealing with more serious matters.

I haven't seen as much of it recently, but the mods do break the rules sometimes, and they don't apply the rules evenly.

We apply them as evenly as we can. I hope you were excluding Che in that as that was out of our power.

This is exactly what I'm getting at.

The reason that I'm concerned with the moderators is because they aren't taking their roles seriously enough at the right moments. It'd be wrong to say that they're all following the same routine because they aren't. There are a few excellent moderators, but it's noticeable that some mods just aren't acting like they should be. I'm not going to point out names, but Che's banning (the most recent incident I could think of) was carried out horribly.

It was more entertainment as it was a serious action. Permabanning someone is serious, no matter who it is. For one, you advertised Che's banning to everyone, in an attempt to spark some sort of "we actually do our jobs!" response which I thought was pathetic. Apparently the only reason you kept him around was because of Stalin, who thought of him as "funny" when he was actually threatening to kill the vast majority of us. The thing that bugs me most about this is that I didn't see any evidence of moderators opposing Stalin on it. That, to me, is a prime example of why we need more dedicated moderators that are there to help the community, not just follow Stalin around, despite it being his site, and actually stand up against him when something's obviously bothering the community.

The way moderators are chosen also makes me concerned. Granted, some moderators earned their rights legitimately, but I think that a lot of them were just made moderators because Stalin considers them friends. They should have proven to be a good candidate for a moderator before being chosen by him.

I propose the moderators adopt new attitudes towards offences and deal with them maturely. That means, when someone claims to have been insulted by another member, you put on your serious face. You don't tell them to "GTFO". I expect all moderators to be mature and a set a good example, but still be able to enjoy the forums like the rest of us by participating in hilarious discussions that occasionally pop up. If it means encouraging the moderators to be much more stricter, so be it. In the long run we won't stray into an argument like this again.

I've got a lot to say about Stalin, but I guess I'll just leave it here. In short, keep up the good work.

The reason we made a thread announcing Che's banning is that people will see that he's gone and we have to explain to practically everyone he's been banned another reason is if we don't people will say we banned if because of his views. Also about Stalin he's the owner of the site and has the final say in everything unless it's so obvious something needs to be done quickly.

For one, it was taken seriously by me and other mods. It should have never been leaked that we were intending to ban Che, I agree on that. Since it was leaked there was no more need to keep it a secret. Other mods including myself have fought to get Che treated the same and banned and most of us treated it seriously. If Stalin says we can't ban this person, then we really can't ban this person but I certainly did what I could to try and get these bans along with others (not naming names, if they want to say then ok). Che's ban was very poorly executed, I am not arguing against that. When Egypt was insulting Lucy right and left I first said his request was impossible, in a serious manner. He was not claiming that she was personally insulting him, at first all he was doing was claiming that she was stupid and causing him to lose brain cells. That's not a legitimate complaint and I will not take back what I said. If someone wants to complain that someone is so stupid that they are going to cause them to leave then they can go on and leave. I don't care about it. If you post in a civil manner that a mod is insulting you then I will do what I can.

You've somehow managed to convince yourself that Che's banning was handled adequately? The mods had a field day with it. Even though it was leaked there was absolutely no need to start threads about it yourselves. I see it as just another attempt to try to prove to the community that you're actually doing your job. I certainly don't consider your "fighting" for anything, to be fair. That's the exact kind of behavior that gets on my nerves, you don't even attempt to challenge Stalin.

Moving on to Egypt, sure he wasn't carrying out his complaint like he should have done, that does not give you the right to blatantly insult him by telling him to "fuck off". You really should be caring about the community more. I've lost a lot of respect for you from recent events.

well i guess the rules are like they are for a reason

Doesn't matter what you add on afterwards, you were still trying to justify it to somehow regain some dignity from the occurance.

Che was an exception because he was treated as such. I certainly didn't like it, nor did most of the other mods. But again, he's not the norm. All of the mods had unanimously agreed (I think, some mods didn't say exactly) that he should have been banned, a long time ago. But we waited for Stalin's approval on the issue because it was a perma-ban and in particular he wanted to know when we were doing things like that. In fact the ban was eventually executed against Stalin's wishes (it was just at a threshold where we couldn't consciously permit Che's continued presence on the forums) but for a long time our hands were quite simply tied.

the mods can't challenge stalin :roll:

it's like a minister challenging Obama for his decisions. what stalin says, goes. if stalin wanted the mods gone, he and lucky could just replace them.

if you think the mods don't do their jobs well go to some other forums and see how they handle things. we're pretty well off.

Stalin hired us to help him run his forums the way he wanted them run. That is our job. To help Stalin run them. I do agree with tere here. Though we did actually challenge it to a degree and then we finally went ahead with the ban, it was going to be done either way, even if Stalin hadn't given the ok finally since he had gone too far too much with the threats. On a different subject, I treat serious issues seriously when acting as a mod, if Lucy was reported I would treat it as a serious report. However I'm not going to put up with pointless abuse of my friends and in my capacity as a user I don't have to be nice back. His original case was nothing but she's stupid. That is a pointless complaint filled with insults, not a serious staff issue. If this causes people to lose respect for me then so be it.

You can't take any criticism to heart, can you?

This is my interpretation of the story:

Egypt becomes provoked by Lucy, insulting her and asking if he can ignore her. You respond by telling him to "fuck off", then attempt to justify it because "he started it" and you need to defend your friend.

To me, it just seems for "an eye for an eye". There's absolutely no need for it and you've just demonstrated exactly what I've just ranted about. Despite how it's worded, it is a serious issue and it should be addressed. You can't just dismiss it because the post upset you, though you can issue an infraction if you're that downright offended by it. Moderators are supposed to be welcoming and nice. What of this don't you get?

i saw that thread reporting lucy...... i feel sick now