seebs

Interesting. For instance, you might just assume that the site doesn't make demands about who you marry... But in fact, the rules about what constitutes a "real" marriage do in fact impose limits. For instance, if stray bullet were to decide he'd found a guy he really liked, he would be prohibited by the site from forming a relationship with that guy. Similarly, I'm permanently disqualified from being staff, because I'm potentially-polygamous. It's not just whom you marry; it's whom you'd be willing to marry!

This degree of control is actually sort of scary. By contrast, C+F and IIDB don't care as long as you're a competent moderator.

Annabel Lee

I doubt anyone was scared away.

nicky

It was not confirmed until after I posted that that Erwin has for the time declared CF mods can not post over here right now.

rigorist

Oh M-o-o-o-ds! Come out and play! I have beer!

Really yummy hoppy beer!

apenman

Hi Jameseb, I see your here. :wave:

Annabel Lee

He can make as many divine proclamations as he sees fit, but the mods do not have to listen to him.

This is such total bullshit.

nicky

But they apparently are.

Annabel Lee

For now maybe.

Once the unfair 'command' is thought through, a few will start posting again.

Blaster

And they run the risk of being demoted or removed for doing so to Annabel. Just look at the history of former staff here. Tough cookies I say.

Mech Bliss

This thread certainly has had a meandering course, and I know that not being a Christian essentially invalidates any complaints I have about a Christian forum, but I'll contribute to the previous bitchfest.

I've had another peculiar warning/appeal experience:

1. Replied to an OP that was a cut-and-paste link promotion for a petition to order the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences to nominate "The Passion of the Christ" for Oscars in several categories, and the end of my post had the sentence, "Of course your posts amount to spam anyway" (from memory).

2. Three days later I was told my entire post would be deleted for that one sentence, and I would get an official warning. No edit request or simply editing out that line, but outright official warning.

3. Appealed this and waited >2 weeks for a judgement that upheld the warning, but did not address anything I said in my appeal, such as my point-by-point refutation of how the rules cited by the mod did not appeal to my post.

4. Since my appeal was not actually addressed, I had to appeal the closing of the appeal, and waited >2 weeks for it to be dismissed without justification yet again.

5. The mod who closed that appeal then admitted in PM that my appeal was not properly addressed, and that the mod would address it via PM. I pointed out that the reason I wrote my appeal in the first place was so it would be addressed instead of dismissed as invalid before being addressed. After all, how can one's case be dismissed if it's just ignored? Or is the appeals process just there so that mods can be defended at all costs and the content of the appeal is ignored?

6. The mod reopened the second appeal and admitted that some rules cited did not fit my post but tried to stretch the no flaming rule to account for my warning on that sentence even though I made no "direct" attack on the user. The subject of the sentence was "posts" not the user. I was simply refering to the fact that the posts made by that user were indeed spam. That's not a flame unless you stretch the definition of "flame" to be all encompassing. Et cetera.

7. The mod retracted the warning only to reinstate the warning a half hour later without providing any actual justification for doing so.

It just seems like the mods defend each other at all costs, even if it means trying to apply the rules beyond reason, or try to apply another rule to another part of your post that was not originally cited just so the warning still seems justified (which is also what happened so far). It's also strange how my appeals both now and in the past often take more than two weeks to be ruled upon (because they're being ignored during that time).

If I can refute the basis for the warning, why not simply retract the warning? Otherwise, why not address my appeal in my presence rather than doing it in private so I know why my refutations were invalid--that is, even if they were addressed by whomever ruled on my appeal? Because the way it appears, I don't think my appeal in this case (and in past cases) were truly addressed at all (which the secrecy of mod involvement in appeals conveniently protects). If there isn't a systematic bias, then it shouldn't manifest itself so obviously, at least from my perspective.