Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Detah · 08-31-2007, 05:16 PM

It is irrelevant what is against the rules on other forums. That argument has no merit. The rules are posted here now; that is the appropriate yardstick.

There are two threads to your point however which do warrant discussion. First, there is the question of whether he broke the rules as written. I do not think he did. Unless there are more rules that are not in the FAQ Rules section. There are four rules there. Paraphrasing: 1) no foul lang. 2) no personal flames. 3) stay on-topic. 4) dont reply to off-topic posts. I just do not see where he violated those rules.

Second, is whether the moderators have interpreted their own rules correctly and therefore the banning was justifiable. It does not appear to be so. It looks like Cratylus was banned because he was argumentative. Agreed, he was very argumentative. The important point here is that there is no rule against being argumentative listed in the Rules. If argumentative is the new standard, then certainly several other people need to be banned too. [I am against that, in case it is not clear.] I am really shocked that he got banned for discussing Post Deletions by Moderators in a Moderation thread. That is how it appears to me. The moderators may have some other yardstick here, but the impression I have is quite clear .... he was banned for being argumentative, not because he broke a listed rule.

Also, we have no way to know (and I dont want to know) what the subject matter of the mod's PMs were to Crat. I dont know. I dont think you know either. So speculating that they were justified, is not fair to either side of the debate. Its certainly not evidence for anything, since it is unknown.

What I think needs to be said here is that, it looks like there are 'more' rules on this site that are not explicitly written. If argumentative is a rule, then it should be stated. It is my honest impression that he was banned and did not break a rule. That is troubling on many levels. And that impression should trouble the moderators.

PS. Just as an aside, I think the rules here are fair.

08-31-2007, 05:16 PM	#109
Detah New Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 14	Re: Moderation It is irrelevant what is against the rules on other forums. That argument has no merit. The rules are posted here now; that is the appropriate yardstick. There are two threads to your point however which do warrant discussion. First, there is the question of whether he broke the rules as written. I do not think he did. Unless there are more rules that are not in the FAQ Rules section. There are four rules there. Paraphrasing: 1) no foul lang. 2) no personal flames. 3) stay on-topic. 4) dont reply to off-topic posts. I just do not see where he violated those rules. Second, is whether the moderators have interpreted their own rules correctly and therefore the banning was justifiable. It does not appear to be so. It looks like Cratylus was banned because he was argumentative. Agreed, he was very argumentative. The important point here is that there is no rule against being argumentative listed in the Rules. If argumentative is the new standard, then certainly several other people need to be banned too. [I am against that, in case it is not clear.] I am really shocked that he got banned for discussing Post Deletions by Moderators in a Moderation thread. That is how it appears to me. The moderators may have some other yardstick here, but the impression I have is quite clear .... he was banned for being argumentative, not because he broke a listed rule. Also, we have no way to know (and I dont want to know) what the subject matter of the mod's PMs were to Crat. I dont know. I dont think you know either. So speculating that they were justified, is not fair to either side of the debate. Its certainly not evidence for anything, since it is unknown. What I think needs to be said here is that, it looks like there are 'more' rules on this site that are not explicitly written. If argumentative is a rule, then it should be stated. It is my honest impression that he was banned and did not break a rule. That is troubling on many levels. And that impression should trouble the moderators. PS. Just as an aside, I think the rules here are fair.