Do you think gamespot is too stcrict?

[QUOTE="MAILER_DAEMON"]

[QUOTE="Lakin0817"][QUOTE="MAILER_DAEMON"][QUOTE="Lakin0817"]Once your smoke clears and your mirrors are dirty Mr.Moderator, it still comes down to being up to the moderator at hand who decides what is "right" and what is "wrong". I've seen it personally several times first hand. I have written several things that didn't harm anyone or offend a soul, but it was disagreeable by a certain group, the moderator at hand agreed with this group and carried out my sentence at his discretion. As far as your checks and balances, do you really think that the admins are going to take the time to police everyone who owns an account on here? I mean seriously, I doubt any of the admins have time, they are too busy trying to make more money off all of us lab rats. The mods interpret their own "rules" and react to them according to what they feel is right, not according to laws and rules.
Lakin0817

I find it really funny that the mod's give everyone warning every 2 seconds taking their jobs so seriously. Alkl the while the higher ups at GameSpot are laughing all the way to the bank that the mod's here actually work for free.MM87

That's true why do yall become mods I guess they love the power.

Last week I got a locked thread and warning for posting something in the PS3 board when it should have been in some hardware board instead. Since when does accidently posting in the wrong board not realizing there was another one break the ToS and warrant a warning? :|MM87

[QUOTE="Lakin0817"][QUOTE="MAILER_DAEMON"]

[QUOTE="Lakin0817"][QUOTE="MAILER_DAEMON"][QUOTE="Lakin0817"]Once your smoke clears and your mirrors are dirty Mr.Moderator, it still comes down to being up to the moderator at hand who decides what is "right" and what is "wrong". I've seen it personally several times first hand. I have written several things that didn't harm anyone or offend a soul, but it was disagreeable by a certain group, the moderator at hand agreed with this group and carried out my sentence at his discretion. As far as your checks and balances, do you really think that the admins are going to take the time to police everyone who owns an account on here? I mean seriously, I doubt any of the admins have time, they are too busy trying to make more money off all of us lab rats. The mods interpret their own "rules" and react to them according to what they feel is right, not according to laws and rules.
MAILER_DAEMON

Well I'm not expecting a perfect system. But calling a flawed system a good system isn't the solution either.Lakin0817

Sounds inherently contradictory to me. Any non-perfect system is somewhat flawed. So what you've said here, effectively, is that you can't call any system good, including but not limited to the moderation system here. Similarly, you've said you don't expect a perfect system in one breath and then implied you do expect one in another.

Instead of lone moderators, have a board of four or five who review them together. but you and I both know that's not going to happen. Mainly due to monetary issues.Lakin0817

What monetary issues? Moderators are volunteers. We don't get paid.

Giving one person the power to arrest, judge and convict will always lead to corruption. If you want a good moral system, you have to pay for it. Gamespot isn't willing to, so they'll settle for their flawed system.Lakin0817

Anyone can throw loose criticisms about like a handful of darts in the hopes of hitting a target somewhere, but the ones who excel at it have focused criticisms. You clearly don't have such focused criticisms. It's just all very personal. And looking at your moderation history, the general criticism you've levied of "inconsistency" isn't really applicable. None of those moderations appear to me to be handled in any way I wouldn't have handled them, and I can say that for countless other moderators. Nor would I expect any admins to come to us with complaints. I can be certain about this because all of your moderations are clear violations -- not just the result of headaches a mod might get from sleeping in obtuse non-ergonomic positions.

Given some of your history, in fact, you must realize that it is hard for me to take your criticisms regarding the consistency of moderations handed out by users here seriously. Let's look at just one of your moderation reports -- an argument you were having previously on American principled being founded on Biblical precepts. Someone who was debating this with you said that America wasn't built on these principles and you reported him for flaming. Now how am I, a moderator, supposed to respond to a report like that? And how am I supposed to relate it to your accusations of consistency? You reported a user you were debating with falsely for flaming. Clearly, you were HOPING for some kind of inconsistency to be applied here in asking that we moderate a user for flaming incorrectly. Given this track record, why would you be an authority on consistency in matters like this?

[QUOTE="Lakin0817"]Well I'm not expecting a perfect system. But calling a flawed system a good system isn't the solution either.m0zart

Sounds inherently contradictory to me. Any non-perfect system is somewhat flawed. So what you've said here, effectively, is that you can't call any system good, including but not limited to the moderation system here. Similarly, you've said you don't expect a perfect system in one breath and then implied you do expect one in another.

Instead of lone moderators, have a board of four or five who review them together. but you and I both know that's not going to happen. Mainly due to monetary issues.Lakin0817

What monetary issues? Moderators are volunteers. We don't get paid.

Giving one person the power to arrest, judge and convict will always lead to corruption. If you want a good moral system, you have to pay for it. Gamespot isn't willing to, so they'll settle for their flawed system.Lakin0817

Anyone can throw loose criticisms about like a handful of darts in the hopes of hitting a target somewhere, but the ones who excel at it have focused criticisms. You clearly don't have such focused criticisms. It's just all very personal. And looking at your moderation history, the general criticism you've levied of "inconsistency" isn't really applicable. None of those moderations appear to me to be handled in any way I wouldn't have handled them, and I can say that for countless other moderators. Nor would I expect any admins to come to us with complaints. I can be certain about this because all of your moderations are clear violations -- not just the result of headaches a mod might get from sleeping in obtuse non-ergonomic positions.

Given some of your history, in fact, you must realize that it is hard for me to take your criticisms regarding the consistency of moderations handed out by users here seriously. Let's look at just one of your moderation reports -- an argument you were having previously on American principled being founded on Biblical precepts. Someone who was debating this with you said that America wasn't built on these principles and you reported him for flaming. Now how am I, a moderator, supposed to respond to a report like that? And how am I supposed to relate it to your accusations of consistency? You reported a user you were debating with falsely for flaming. Clearly, you were HOPING for some kind of inconsistency to be applied here in asking that we moderate a user for flaming incorrectly. Given this track record, why would you be an authority on consistency in matters like this?

Fascists! I just got modded for agreeing that the moderation here is too strict. No joke. It didn't take more than a minute. Spineless idiots. PM me and explain to me what I did wrong. Don't just click a button for no reason other than because you can. EliotFingerbutt

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

[QUOTE="Lakin0817"]Well I'm not expecting a perfect system. But calling a flawed system a good system isn't the solution either.Lakin0817

Sounds inherently contradictory to me. Any non-perfect system is somewhat flawed. So what you've said here, effectively, is that you can't call any system good, including but not limited to the moderation system here. Similarly, you've said you don't expect a perfect system in one breath and then implied you do expect one in another.

Instead of lone moderators, have a board of four or five who review them together. but you and I both know that's not going to happen. Mainly due to monetary issues.Lakin0817

What monetary issues? Moderators are volunteers. We don't get paid.

Giving one person the power to arrest, judge and convict will always lead to corruption. If you want a good moral system, you have to pay for it. Gamespot isn't willing to, so they'll settle for their flawed system.Lakin0817

Anyone can throw loose criticisms about like a handful of darts in the hopes of hitting a target somewhere, but the ones who excel at it have focused criticisms. You clearly don't have such focused criticisms. It's just all very personal. And looking at your moderation history, the general criticism you've levied of "inconsistency" isn't really applicable. None of those moderations appear to me to be handled in any way I wouldn't have handled them, and I can say that for countless other moderators. Nor would I expect any admins to come to us with complaints. I can be certain about this because all of your moderations are clear violations -- not just the result of headaches a mod might get from sleeping in obtuse non-ergonomic positions.

Given some of your history, in fact, you must realize that it is hard for me to take your criticisms regarding the consistency of moderations handed out by users here seriously. Let's look at just one of your moderation reports -- an argument you were having previously on American principled being founded on Biblical precepts. Someone who was debating this with you said that America wasn't built on these principles and you reported him for flaming. Now how am I, a moderator, supposed to respond to a report like that? And how am I supposed to relate it to your accusations of consistency? You reported a user you were debating with falsely for flaming. Clearly, you were HOPING for some kind of inconsistency to be applied here in asking that we moderate a user for flaming incorrectly. Given this track record, why would you be an authority on consistency in matters like this?

I don't think I need to respond to this. At all.

Gamespot is accessible by many, certain topics and comments are for older eyes only. a55assin

Like your sig and user icon?

[QUOTE="Lakin0817"][QUOTE="m0zart"]

[QUOTE="Lakin0817"]Well I'm not expecting a perfect system. But calling a flawed system a good system isn't the solution either.MAILER_DAEMON

Sounds inherently contradictory to me. Any non-perfect system is somewhat flawed. So what you've said here, effectively, is that you can't call any system good, including but not limited to the moderation system here. Similarly, you've said you don't expect a perfect system in one breath and then implied you do expect one in another.

Instead of lone moderators, have a board of four or five who review them together. but you and I both know that's not going to happen. Mainly due to monetary issues.Lakin0817

What monetary issues? Moderators are volunteers. We don't get paid.

Giving one person the power to arrest, judge and convict will always lead to corruption. If you want a good moral system, you have to pay for it. Gamespot isn't willing to, so they'll settle for their flawed system.Lakin0817

Anyone can throw loose criticisms about like a handful of darts in the hopes of hitting a target somewhere, but the ones who excel at it have focused criticisms. You clearly don't have such focused criticisms. It's just all very personal. And looking at your moderation history, the general criticism you've levied of "inconsistency" isn't really applicable. None of those moderations appear to me to be handled in any way I wouldn't have handled them, and I can say that for countless other moderators. Nor would I expect any admins to come to us with complaints. I can be certain about this because all of your moderations are clear violations -- not just the result of headaches a mod might get from sleeping in obtuse non-ergonomic positions.

Given some of your history, in fact, you must realize that it is hard for me to take your criticisms regarding the consistency of moderations handed out by users here seriously. Let's look at just one of your moderation reports -- an argument you were having previously on American principled being founded on Biblical precepts. Someone who was debating this with you said that America wasn't built on these principles and you reported him for flaming. Now how am I, a moderator, supposed to respond to a report like that? And how am I supposed to relate it to your accusations of consistency? You reported a user you were debating with falsely for flaming. Clearly, you were HOPING for some kind of inconsistency to be applied here in asking that we moderate a user for flaming incorrectly. Given this track record, why would you be an authority on consistency in matters like this?

I don't think I need to respond to this. At all.

[QUOTE="a55assin"]Gamespot is accessible by many, certain topics and comments are for older eyes only. BlackAlpha666

Like your sig and user icon?

My avatar is fine. No mod has ever commented on it.

What's wrong with my sig...

I think the rules are fine... maybe slightly too strict.

I've had a couple violation warnings for being off-topic... and these warnings are extremely fast. You say something wrong, in the wrong forum and like 5-10 minutes later your pinned.

Really? I think I feels a bit like a game, you've just got to get use to the rules and you can avoid moderations but they should hand out more warnings rather than instant moderations because sometimes it just feels like they're trying to catch you out when you make a genuine mistake rather than trying to keep things in order.proud722

I'd like to know where you go to randomly view someone's moderation history.Lakin0817

Moderators can see your history. That's how we know if someone is a chronic offender, and how we determine if the penalties need to be increased on subsequent violations.

Why the name change. Secondly I never said it was on this name. Thirdly, there are some very gray areas on ways i've been moderated on this name. Once again you are trying to revert the subject matter to my moderation history vs it being the moderators personal views that lead to moderation. It wouldn't surprise me if you were my moderator on most of them. For someone who is a grad student, you sure don't know how to stay on subject. How bout you moderate me for that?Lakin0817

There is no name change. MAILER_DAEMON and I are two different users. Much in the same way that you are a different user from countless users you debate with here on OT.

In any case, your experience with the moderation system (i.e. your moderation history) is the basis with which you are making this judgement. You suggest that the moderation system is broken mainly because of how it has been applied to you. However, what is clear to any moderator who can see it is that every moderation you were handed is both consistent and valid. The only inconsistency here is that you have behavior inconsistent with the rules of the forum, which is what resulted in those moderations.

[QUOTE="Lakin0817"]Well I'm not expecting a perfect system. But calling a flawed system a good system isn't the solution either.m0zart

Sounds inherently contradictory to me. Any non-perfect system is somewhat flawed. So what you've said here, effectively, is that you can't call any system good, including but not limited to the moderation system here. Similarly, you've said you don't expect a perfect system in one breath and then implied you do expect one in another.

Instead of lone moderators, have a board of four or five who review them together. but you and I both know that's not going to happen. Mainly due to monetary issues.Lakin0817

What monetary issues? Moderators are volunteers. We don't get paid.

Giving one person the power to arrest, judge and convict will always lead to corruption. If you want a good moral system, you have to pay for it. Gamespot isn't willing to, so they'll settle for their flawed system.Lakin0817

Anyone can throw loose criticisms about like a handful of darts in the hopes of hitting a target somewhere, but the ones who excel at it have focused criticisms. You clearly don't have such focused criticisms. It's just all very personal. And looking at your moderation history, the general criticism you've levied of "inconsistency" isn't really applicable. None of those moderations appear to me to be handled in any way I wouldn't have handled them, and I can say that for countless other moderators. Nor would I expect any admins to come to us with complaints. I can be certain about this because all of your moderations are clear violations -- not just the result of headaches a mod might get from sleeping in obtuse non-ergonomic positions.

Given some of your history, in fact, you must realize that it is hard for me to take your criticisms regarding the consistency of moderations handed out by users here seriously. Let's look at just one of your moderation reports -- an argument you were having previously on American principled being founded on Biblical precepts. Someone who was debating this with you said that America wasn't built on these principles and you reported him for flaming. Now how am I, a moderator, supposed to respond to a report like that? And how am I supposed to relate it to your accusations of consistency? You reported a user you were debating with falsely for flaming. Clearly, you were HOPING for some kind of inconsistency to be applied here in asking that we moderate a user for flaming incorrectly. Given this track record, why would you be an authority on consistency in matters like this?

Yes ......

This place is to uptight and controlled by idiots

[QUOTE="Lakin0817"]I'd like to know where you go to randomly view someone's moderation history.m0zart

Moderators can see your history. That's how we know if someone is a chronic offender, and how we determine if the penalties need to be increased on subsequent violations.

Why the name change. Secondly I never said it was on this name. Thirdly, there are some very gray areas on ways i've been moderated on this name. Once again you are trying to revert the subject matter to my moderation history vs it being the moderators personal views that lead to moderation. It wouldn't surprise me if you were my moderator on most of them. For someone who is a grad student, you sure don't know how to stay on subject. How bout you moderate me for that?Lakin0817

There is no name change. MAILER_DAEMON and I are two different users. Much in the same way that you are a different user from countless users you debate with here on OT.

In any case, your experience with the moderation system (i.e. your moderation history) is the basis with which you are making this judgement. You suggest that the moderation system is broken mainly because of how it has been applied to you. However, what is clear to any moderator who can see it is that every moderation you were handed is both consistent and valid. The only inconsistency here is that you have behavior inconsistent with the rules of the forum, which is what resulted in those moderations.

Yes ......

This place is to uptight and controlled by idiots

Norg

[QUOTE="MAILER_DAEMON"][QUOTE="Lakin0817"][QUOTE="m0zart"]

[QUOTE="Lakin0817"]Well I'm not expecting a perfect system. But calling a flawed system a good system isn't the solution either.Lakin0817

Sounds inherently contradictory to me. Any non-perfect system is somewhat flawed. So what you've said here, effectively, is that you can't call any system good, including but not limited to the moderation system here. Similarly, you've said you don't expect a perfect system in one breath and then implied you do expect one in another.

Instead of lone moderators, have a board of four or five who review them together. but you and I both know that's not going to happen. Mainly due to monetary issues.Lakin0817

What monetary issues? Moderators are volunteers. We don't get paid.

Giving one person the power to arrest, judge and convict will always lead to corruption. If you want a good moral system, you have to pay for it. Gamespot isn't willing to, so they'll settle for their flawed system.Lakin0817

Anyone can throw loose criticisms about like a handful of darts in the hopes of hitting a target somewhere, but the ones who excel at it have focused criticisms. You clearly don't have such focused criticisms. It's just all very personal. And looking at your moderation history, the general criticism you've levied of "inconsistency" isn't really applicable. None of those moderations appear to me to be handled in any way I wouldn't have handled them, and I can say that for countless other moderators. Nor would I expect any admins to come to us with complaints. I can be certain about this because all of your moderations are clear violations -- not just the result of headaches a mod might get from sleeping in obtuse non-ergonomic positions.

Given some of your history, in fact, you must realize that it is hard for me to take your criticisms regarding the consistency of moderations handed out by users here seriously. Let's look at just one of your moderation reports -- an argument you were having previously on American principled being founded on Biblical precepts. Someone who was debating this with you said that America wasn't built on these principles and you reported him for flaming. Now how am I, a moderator, supposed to respond to a report like that? And how am I supposed to relate it to your accusations of consistency? You reported a user you were debating with falsely for flaming. Clearly, you were HOPING for some kind of inconsistency to be applied here in asking that we moderate a user for flaming incorrectly. Given this track record, why would you be an authority on consistency in matters like this?

I don't think I need to respond to this. At all.

An unbiased moderator using a different name to look at my moderation history to post it publicly to be used against me? I rest my case.Lakin0817

Yet another accusation based on pallid conspiracy theories, namely that Mailer and I are the same person -- which is patently false.

You were the one who made your moderation history the subject of this discussion by bringing up supposed malfeasance on the part of the moderators themselves.

[QUOTE="Lakin0817"][QUOTE="MAILER_DAEMON"][QUOTE="Lakin0817"][QUOTE="m0zart"]

[QUOTE="Lakin0817"]Well I'm not expecting a perfect system. But calling a flawed system a good system isn't the solution either.MAILER_DAEMON

Sounds inherently contradictory to me. Any non-perfect system is somewhat flawed. So what you've said here, effectively, is that you can't call any system good, including but not limited to the moderation system here. Similarly, you've said you don't expect a perfect system in one breath and then implied you do expect one in another.

Instead of lone moderators, have a board of four or five who review them together. but you and I both know that's not going to happen. Mainly due to monetary issues.Lakin0817

What monetary issues? Moderators are volunteers. We don't get paid.

Giving one person the power to arrest, judge and convict will always lead to corruption. If you want a good moral system, you have to pay for it. Gamespot isn't willing to, so they'll settle for their flawed system.Lakin0817

Anyone can throw loose criticisms about like a handful of darts in the hopes of hitting a target somewhere, but the ones who excel at it have focused criticisms. You clearly don't have such focused criticisms. It's just all very personal. And looking at your moderation history, the general criticism you've levied of "inconsistency" isn't really applicable. None of those moderations appear to me to be handled in any way I wouldn't have handled them, and I can say that for countless other moderators. Nor would I expect any admins to come to us with complaints. I can be certain about this because all of your moderations are clear violations -- not just the result of headaches a mod might get from sleeping in obtuse non-ergonomic positions.

Given some of your history, in fact, you must realize that it is hard for me to take your criticisms regarding the consistency of moderations handed out by users here seriously. Let's look at just one of your moderation reports -- an argument you were having previously on American principled being founded on Biblical precepts. Someone who was debating this with you said that America wasn't built on these principles and you reported him for flaming. Now how am I, a moderator, supposed to respond to a report like that? And how am I supposed to relate it to your accusations of consistency? You reported a user you were debating with falsely for flaming. Clearly, you were HOPING for some kind of inconsistency to be applied here in asking that we moderate a user for flaming incorrectly. Given this track record, why would you be an authority on consistency in matters like this?

I don't think I need to respond to this. At all.

I have no doubt I will be modded for even breathing in this post, but seriously...

When I first started here, I was modded a few times for a few PG-13 comments, which, all things considered, I understood, if not necessarily agreed with - I mean yeah there are perhaps ikids on these forums.

But then I logged in to see that I have been "Officially warned" (oooOOOOooo!) for posting a homework help topic! I merely asked what ration packs were used in several wars - an incredibly minor point in an assignment that had bugger all to do with it.

In a forum where people ask advice on everything from girls to religion to "should my penis look like this?", I get modded for using the internet as a potential learning opportunity?

Seriously, you think kids are that innocent their lives will be altered by something they read on Gamespot? Lighten up, you puritans!

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

[QUOTE="Lakin0817"]I'd like to know where you go to randomly view someone's moderation history.Lakin0817

Moderators can see your history. That's how we know if someone is a chronic offender, and how we determine if the penalties need to be increased on subsequent violations.

Why the name change. Secondly I never said it was on this name. Thirdly, there are some very gray areas on ways i've been moderated on this name. Once again you are trying to revert the subject matter to my moderation history vs it being the moderators personal views that lead to moderation. It wouldn't surprise me if you were my moderator on most of them. For someone who is a grad student, you sure don't know how to stay on subject. How bout you moderate me for that?Lakin0817

There is no name change. MAILER_DAEMON and I are two different users. Much in the same way that you are a different user from countless users you debate with here on OT.

In any case, your experience with the moderation system (i.e. your moderation history) is the basis with which you are making this judgement. You suggest that the moderation system is broken mainly because of how it has been applied to you. However, what is clear to any moderator who can see it is that every moderation you were handed is both consistent and valid. The only inconsistency here is that you have behavior inconsistent with the rules of the forum, which is what resulted in those moderations.

:lol: your grasping straws now my friend, you just got mod OWNED.FrostyPhantasm

That's rediculous. You and your fellow moderator still haven't stuck to the point at hand, and that is, do the moderators have complete controll over the report according to their personal judgement and opinions.Lakin0817

You just accused us of being the same person, and WE'RE the ones who haven't stuck to the point at hand?

There's nothing ridiculous about our responses here -- you are throwing out a very generic criticism with ZERO hard examples, and then getting bent out of shape when we show you situations where the moderation system has worked, namely in your case.

Now tell me -- what situations, and by that I mean concrete situations, can you point out which have demonstrated an inconsistency on the part of the moderators?

[QUOTE="Lakin0817"]That's rediculous. You and your fellow moderator still haven't stuck to the point at hand, and that is, do the moderators have complete controll over the report according to their personal judgement and opinions.m0zart

You just accused us of being the same person, and WE'RE the ones who haven't stuck to the point at hand?

There's nothing ridiculous about our responses here -- you are throwing out a very generic criticism with ZERO hard examples, and then getting bent out of shape when we show you situations where the moderation system has worked, namely in your case.

Now tell me -- what situations, and by that I mean concrete situations, can you point out which have demonstrated an inconsistency on the part of the moderators?

Mr.Mozart sir. It's really hard to take you serious when you STILL don't see the point at hand. The entire point of this debate, at least to begin with, was moderators allowing their own personal feelings to get involved with their moderation authority.Lakin0817

Oh no I get the point quite well. You are throwing out a general accusation without anything to back it up other than opinion. You assume it must be happening, but you don't really know that it is.

You comming in here pounding your chest and strutting around proves my point perfectly. You guys have the last word according to your own personal views and opinions. Now you and your little buddy run along and go falsely ban someone for having an opinion different than your own. Lakin0817

I haven't pounded my chest once here. I haven't moderated you either. I am facing you as another user here. I expect you to show me concrete examples that demonstrate that the system you are maligning here is broken to the degree that you've claimed it is.

There ya go -- a challenge -- quite appropriate and on topic.

Now you and your little buddy run along and go falsely ban someone for having an opinion different than your own. Lakin0817

Actually why is posting in all caps something to be moderated anyways?iusm78

It's disruptive and it stands for yelling.

Actually why is posting in all caps something to be moderated anyways?iusm78

Actually why is posting in all caps something to be moderated anyways?iusm78

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

[QUOTE="Lakin0817"]That's rediculous. You and your fellow moderator still haven't stuck to the point at hand, and that is, do the moderators have complete controll over the report according to their personal judgement and opinions.Lakin0817

You just accused us of being the same person, and WE'RE the ones who haven't stuck to the point at hand?

There's nothing ridiculous about our responses here -- you are throwing out a very generic criticism with ZERO hard examples, and then getting bent out of shape when we show you situations where the moderation system has worked, namely in your case.

Now tell me -- what situations, and by that I mean concrete situations, can you point out which have demonstrated an inconsistency on the part of the moderators?

well i have been moderated for small things with no points lost besides for once which i admit i should have lost points. but the last one was really dumb. it was in a thread parodying fads and posts and stuff of OT. and i made a post with ALL CAPS and also made a reference to grammar and mods in it. it was all in good fun but i got modded 5 days later. i know caps arent allowed but we've have most likely all seen posts where someone uses all caps. i dont get why its a big deal because of the thread i posted it in.Gokuja

Exactly it's because the mods don't look at the context of the moderation they merely see oh a report this person must be guilty. I'm not calling for as huge revolution like some people I merely want the mods to lighten up. If they weren't so strict about every little thing there wouldn't be a problem.