Thread: Bash the mod and win a prize!

Originally Posted by yrean

actually i lurked here for a good year on and off before i ever decided to get an account.

its not love or hate. its the simple fact that if something is wrong its wrong.

and whats going on is wrong. and i see it as an abuse of powers.

a joke was made, maybe in poor taste, but a joke in a thread called bash a mod and win a prize which was made by a mod.

and what happened was not sexual harrasment. for those of you taking things way to far with your power. heres the definition. I guess i should use this smilie for you.

Sexual harassment is defined as:
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when: (1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment or academic advancement; (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions or academic decisions affecting such individual

I seen no advance made. simple a joke of bad taste if you want to be technical about the whole thing.

Ahhh, I like how you pass over the parts that have been violated, and stick to the things that have not. You did see "and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment" in that definition as well, right. Those statement are definitely "Verbal" (well written, but it counts, trust me) conduct of a sexual nature" Sexual harrassment has been defined VERY broadly by the courts. First, here is a link to the EEOC, the US federal agency that investigates sexual harassment in the workplace, http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-sex.html. For Red, though, the problem is that this is not a work environment, and even though the courts are now more lenient about that rule, there does have to be some sort of "special" relationship. The only link I could find is this one http://www.discriminationattorney.com/harassno.shtml

Sorry read, but, based on a previous PM to you, there may be other issues to raise

Michael

Originally Posted by h3avyl1ft

This is my first day as an official member but i have been reading this great forum for a long time now. What a surprise it was to see that this thread was on top and how it changed from the begining to end.
I have a few observations
1- there are no sexual suggestions made in any of the posts
2- the statements are ambiguous, when i first read them, i was thinking of 2 mods tag teaming - getting behind, being behind meaning supporting??
3- 2 names mentioned in the comments but only 1 who posted a reply. Predisposed mind towards such a negative definition of the comments made? The other party mentioned made no such accusation. Thinking too much of this?
4- 3 people made comments but why only were the two new guys banned?

It seems some newer members or n00bs in this case are always being harassed. First it was n00b bashing and the ever popular "RTFM" "Search!" and "it's been covered already" and now it's targeting newbies as a point of release for comments and putdowns from other members. It was not discussed nor were the comments made clearly in a sexual manner. This is one of the reasons why i had not signed up earlier. It was always easier to look and not ask for fear of public embarassment.
Yes i have looked at other posts by both of the banned members and have found some to be a bit strong on language or content, but this is not a matter of sexual harassment but a matter of one person's opinion swaying the context of a whole thread. yrean is right, this is the internet and people will say stupid things. No doubt this first post will be my last post because a n00b post will attract the most evil reactions from mods in almost all forums. I am a newbie by my signup date but i have had enough time to know the culture of this forum.
By banning people from forums without warining (none were seen on the posts unless they were PM the warnings, then i apologize) you are effectively saying that they have no right to explain their actions and by doing so, have already judged and sentenced them. We live in a land where people are innocent until proven guilty, but you hypocrites seem to want nothing of that. And it does appear that the evidence is being destroyed 1 post at a time and the last quote by the third member is gone.

What a brilliant legal mind, too bad you are completely wrong.

Saying how about we go out for drinks can be sexual harrassment, wether the guy says, I can't wait to eff you after dinner or he doesn;t say it. While you may see them as ambiguous, one can not hide behind statements claiming ambiguity. The test is not what it meant by the statement, it is actually how the statements are taken. Unfortunately, that is the law. That part I do not agree with, but it is the law. The test is, does the victim feel that it "creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment" Like I said above, the problem is the work environment element of the test.

Also, people can't hide behind the internet. It is not lawless. Just because it is cyberspace, doesn;t mean that the laws are relaxed or not in effect. Peiople are responsible for thier actions and words, no matter where and when, and why said.

And, no one has to be warned. The boards are NOT a democracy, they are a Monarchy/Dictatorship. I know this is hard for people who are free and not oppressed to understand, but legally, the Admins can do what they want, when they want, as long as no laws are broken. Banning does not violate any laws. There is no innocent until proven guilty, that is ONLY for criminal violations.

You really need to learn the law before you start making legal statements and assumptions.

Michael

Originally Posted by yrean

there was one comment really, and it was a play on dp's name and something sexual. thats about as far as ill quote it. Like i said i did think it was poor taste, i think you can still see DP's retort about stamina or something.. does that mean that dp should be banned too? considering his comment was sexual in nature as a response?

just the way things have been handled lately in general. Mind you, it could of been edited away with a not acceptable or something instead of a ban. Meaning a public warning. funny thing this post happened 2 days ago and there just getting banned today? just one more notch in the abuse of power belt.

since my opinion differs, and ive already been called a women beater, i wonder how long till i get called even more names, since i wont bend my views to theirs.

It never ceases to amze me how people want to say something is not fair or is wrong because, He also did it, or because it happened two days ago, why is it happeneing now.

Well, the truth is, it happened. It was bannable, but RED didn't want to ban them because of fear that "She banned them because they made fun of her" and it took 2 days for ZL to get the PM, Message, E-Mail and ban them. Do you really think the ban is wrong because it took two days for it to happen. Perhaps ZL wanted to consult his lawyer before he banned them. Perhaps he wanted to think about the words used before he banned them.

It is sooo silly to think that since it took two days, the ban is wrong. Sometimes, it take the cops months to arrest someone, does that mean the arrest is bogus because it took t2 months, or even two days?

Yes, lots of things could have been done, but this is what they chose to do, ban them. It is there decision.

Michael

Originally Posted by ccsnet

OK - I think this whole thread is going OTT and quite simpley those above comments are out of order considering your sposed to be a moderator.

YOU are sposed to be a neutral party in any area and as such I have reported your actions.

Terran

Who said she had to be neutral??

Michael

[QUOTE=yrean;915936]

if you have mods that arent doing their jobs, or abusing your powers, then you should replace them, or instruct them how to handle things if needs be. as a forum owner you shouldnt have to babysit the mods you choose. This should of never gotten this far out of hand and should of been handled better from the start.

All i have is an opinion until, having one becomes illegal here, Ill still maintain that opinion. some people are just hypocrits.
[QUOTE]

You are entitled to your opinion, as is everyone here. But, obviously, ZL doesn;t think that the mods are doing anything wrong. You may disagree, but you are not in charge, he is.

Nothing anyone can do about it.

Michael

I'm not sure if Red as a proper conception of what a Modorator is, I think she need to read this thread and its link.

Forum moderator

Originally Posted by Wiredwrx

Who said she had to be neutral??

Michael

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_moderator

Role
The roles of moderators can vary from forum to forum, just as the purposes of the forums themselves can vary. However, on boards intended to be public, moderators are generally accorded additional powers to enforce forum rules and conduct administrative tasks that cannot be trusted to ordinary users (such as pinning threads—if any user were allowed to pin his or her own thread, chaos would ensue).

Among a moderator's enforcement duties is often the duty to stop flaming and keep the board a friendly place, free of personal insults (but different boards have different standards, and what is acceptable on one will invariably be prohibited on another). Most boards also ban illegal material (such as warez) and outright pornography, and many also restrict the use of profanity and any violent or sexual images, however in other boards this is considered perfectly acceptable, or even the norm.

On some boards, moderators are expected to stay out of all contentious debates, or at least to use alternate accounts to engage in them unbeknownst to common members. On most boards, however, moderators may participate just as any normal member, provided they remain civil and generally obey the site rules. Some boards require moderators not to moderate any discussion or topic they're involved in, and many moderators on other boards take this upon themselves to avoid conflict of interest and bias.

As always, there are many exceptions. Many small boards are operated at the whim of the site operator and perhaps some of his or her friends, and moderators might be able to do whatever they feel like on such boards (provided they avoid crossing their colleagues and superiors). Of course, a board with overly harsh or capricious moderators will lose members, but this may not be a concern for those who operate boards for fun or as a tangential matter to their website's main content

So what you saying is that moderators can be as neutral as say..... US soldiers looking after prisioners at Abu Ghraib prision then just because.... ?

Terran

Originally Posted by DarquePervert

Damn....
I'm sooooooo glad I was out of town this weekend to miss this bull****.

That's right, stir up a hornets nest and run away