Quote from Skeletonxf

1. Yes, there are no 'rules' but damn, we check on each other's work on the spreadsheet.
2. Almost every ban was given to people who were given a warning first, I've seen mods give out multiple warnings before a ban myself, and I too tend to give out a second warning before banning if there's a delay in time between non civil posts.
3. In those few instances of straight up ban, it was because someone was already banned on their main and proceeded to alt so as to continue spamming, or the thing they posted in chat was ridiculously over the top. No one on our spreadsheet has been banned for even 1 hour without a warning if all they did was spam a little.


Learn what debate means, wild accusations are not debating.

Every screenshot on this thread is yet to show any abuse of powers.

"psychologically made you be a little more wary of what you post" For starters, obviously it's going to be psychological if you're talking about our minds. Frankly the use of the word is pointless in this context. More wary of what we post? There is no thinking room room to be wary of telling people to stop spamming.
4. Pics or it didn't happen
5. No one gets banned for just hating us personally
6. We have a pretty consistent banning system now. Someone spamming a little doesn't get a year long ban.

Getting screenshots with the chat is hard? I have to copy out usernames on people with the chat jumping down all the time. Pressing the printscreen key is much easier than getting the right part of a name selected when any post forces you to start highlighting all over again.

7. Also, I have no obligation to go around translating everything when someone who doesn't speak English well posts messages but I do anyway. If someone is spamming and doesn't speak English, I try to tell them to stop in their own language. It's not like the warnings are even their for their own sake, and act as a free pass to ban people. They are there to inform people to stop and I try to make them understood as best I can.

de·bate
dəˈbāt/
noun
noun: debate; plural noun: debates
1.
a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.
aargue about (a subject), especially in a formal manner

2.an argument about a particular subject, especially one in which many people are involved.
consider a possible course of action in one's mind before reaching a decision.

Basically, a formal argument. I am sorry but I did not give any wild accusations. I gave a picture with an explanation. My claim was deemed to be unfit, so I accepted that. As for " pics or it didn't happen " a pic was given. Tecness was banning(or threatening, not sure) someone because they were saying the admin was abusing his powers. Miner Revolution asked if he was being forbidden to use the chat unless he gave pictures of of admin abuse. Tecness said,"Exactly. See you soon." This is clearly abuse of powers. Apparently he was banned because he hated an admin personally, contradiction to what you said. As for psychologically wary, I suppose I was misunderstood. I meant that when you are accused of something, you tend be more cautious, either consciously or subconsciously. I have no problem with admins telling people to stop spamming. Why would I? Also the print screen button just copies the picture. There is no website I know of that lets you paste it.

Quote from Juggerman1

Guys, with Kaito, we're beating a dead horse. He accepted he was wrong.

You mistake me. I am still going to argue on the other pic's behalf, but I said my own was invalid :)

Quote from BenTZ

Time to start reporting.



You should keep in mind- to next time provide solidified evidence if you are to accuse a moderator as being a dictator. Sorry mate, but the majority of SE can do without cussing, CAPS lock, frequent spamming, etc.
It ruins the experience for everyone- they give you a warning beforehand and if you do not chose to abide by the ethical rules of the chat- then don't chat.

An example of solidified evidence would be:



This was meant as a joke- but admins shouldn't be using their powers for the sake of "fun".

The examples that you have provided are invalid as they are all punishments that have reasons attached to them. In my case, "sucking" is the reason- which is also an invalid reason for a chat ban.

Feel free to report other cases of valid reasons before accusations next time. Thanks.

Ok I disagree with the other picture being invalid. How ever, I am pretty sure I agree with you on the matter of the invalidity of your ban, regardless of whether it was a joke or not.

Quote from DragonArcherZ

And this is why I don't support Kaito + Miner in being mods. Thread.

Sorry this is isn't a mod thread. It was a complaint thread made by someone who wasn't a mod :)

Well first of all, how did the accusations even start? You kinda need a first case to explain why one I'd accusing someone else. Like, if I were to yell at an administrator and question his authority, he would eventually ban me, and then I would have something to complain about. See the circular logic? So basically, did you even have a reason for questioning him in the first place?

don't question their authority because they will eventually snap and ban you... sounds good to me. Question all of their authority and if they snap over a question and ban you...they are not fit for the job.

But in all seriousness. Techness banned me because i did not give the screenshot evidence. He banned me because i would not submit to his will for acquisition of something i had.
He said give. I said wait. he said....ban. Clear as day people. Look at the picture..
We talked for a while. And because he freely spent his time with me and thought he had now wasted it...he became vengeful over his preconception of "wasted" time and had to do something to "get me back" so he decided to hold my chat abilities hostage as ransom for getting what he desired from me.
and did i read that someone declared that as honorable? i hope that wasn't another moderator saying that...
ps...its called torture tactics. maybe its not bamboo chutes under the nails but still bullying tactics of inflicting harm for ones personal fulfillment. Wether you torture to save the world or destroy it. still is what it is. So is this now ok for ALL moderators to do at any time? If they want information or specific actions done that are not chat-room rules related they are aloud to ban in the name of "honorable motivation"... ...its called taking hostage and calling for ransom...cmon guys.


------------Click the magnifying glass when your mouse is hovered over the picture-------------------
http://s1369.photobucket.com/user/danielfontan/media/qwer_zps16c6f2d1.png.html

Quote from DanielFontan

don't question their authority because they will eventually snap and ban you... sounds good to me. Question all of their authority and if they snap over a question and ban you...they are not fit for the job.

http://forums.stickpage.com/showthread.php?79221-StickPage-Official-Rules-(Updated-11-8-14)&highlight=Rules

-Do not disrespect, threaten, insult or otherwise harass staff members
-Do not publicly complain about disciplinary actions
-Do not backseat moderate(?) or otherwise act as a staff member of StickPage when you are not[5]
If a user is banned, then they are no longer allowed to participate in the StickPage community at all including IRC, RHG, and RHG Clans
Do not act as a proxy for a banned user by posting content or contributing on their behalf

These are very common forum rules that you will see almost anywhere.

I am not guilty of any of these listed offenses. The "disrespect" could be vague enough to get anyone for the individual moderators ego getting hurt over something that is clearly not offensive and also leaving up to MAJOR interpretation of what it means to disrespect. A few rules of what not to do that shows disrespect would clear that up as do the rest of the rules fall under the vague umbrella of disrespect... but i assure I meant no disrespect and my words were not hostile or offensive in nature and would really need to be stretched to be interpreted as such. All of this said. I have already stated I was given no warning of disrespec and was given no gesture that they were feeling disrespected. If it was mistake on disrepect i understand. But the photo shows clearly it was a renegade action on me not giving the screenshots as commanded...is not following arbitrary rules a form of disrespect? I also was never told or realized I was under law to give to them immediately or be banned. Even with this said. Asking to make clear of what was going down I questioned as in the photo and he replied "Exactly". To the Exact point. There is no refuting. Why is this even being refuted?

Is it or is it not ok for Moderators to ban and hold chat abilities hostage for the sake of information -outside chat room rules-. If this is ok...then may it be proclaimed with GREAT PRIDE to say that which is right is right and there is nothing wrong with it..who would be ashamed of saying eating people is wrong? who would feel it necessary to justify that action of not eating people? There is no shame and no need to dance for so long unless it needs to be justified. What is great and honorable is justified by the action itself..it speaks for itself. The dance shows that there is at least a grey area here and if so let it be said.

All of this can be cleared up with a check box for agreeing to a terms of agreement link next to it before entering chat. This will save the moderators time of have to warn 4 people at a time 1 -2x before a ban clogging up conversation for warnings or the confusion of such.

Quote from DanielFontan

All of this can be cleared up with a check box for agreeing to a terms of agreement link next to it before entering chat. This will save the moderators time of have to warn 4 people at a time 1 -2x before a ban clogging up conversation for warnings or the confusion of such.

This I can wholeheartedly agree with.

This needs a threadlock. All I see are empty arguments without pics or proof of any such case happening. Therefore, why is there 4 pages of discussion on something we all agree is a bad thing yet can't find any solid example of it actually taking place?

Quote from WyzDM

This needs a threadlock. All I see are empty arguments without pics or proof of any such case happening. Therefore, why is there 4 pages of discussion on something we all agree is a bad thing yet can't find any solid example of it actually taking place?

Because he keeps replying with the same stupid argument and we keep replying to it.

Quote from WyzDM

This needs a threadlock. All I see are empty arguments without pics or proof of any such case happening. Therefore, why is there 4 pages of discussion on something we all agree is a bad thing yet can't find any solid example of it actually taking place?

http://s1369.photobucket.com/user/danielfontan/media/qwer_zps16c6f2d1.png.html

I see wholehearted arguments. These arguments have been thoroughly explained through a physiological standpoint of motivation and action. There is nothing empty about these arguments even without evidence. Which there has been in many posts here. the agreement is basically 50/50 because of what the Entire topic has been about. There is no all for one here otherwise it would not be continuing.

The topic of this forum is the actions of Techness. The actions of Techness have been discussed and accepeted/denied. The evident screenshot seems to be constantly unseen and the wholesome posts unread or misunderstood.

http://s1369.photobucket.com/user/danielfontan/media/qwer_zps16c6f2d1.png.html

btw IHATETHISNAME.. I have not once replied with the same argument but responses to people's comments or questions. I hope people read the posts to realize that instead of judge me on your one post.

Quote from IHATETHISNAME

Because he keeps replying with the same stupid argument and we keep replying to it.

More like relying. Now reply to this post. If not, then its not a loss.

not sure if it was for me to reply to but its not a stupid argument, i was banned because i didn't give techness screenshots. is this right? Who has the power to moderate moderators...let it be the judge.

The reason this thread is so long is because I have to restate things because people have over-read something and say something that would be cleared up if they read the entire post or didn't miss a part.. that's when i come in showing them that its already been covered in a previous post.

I think the quadra post is more than a good enough example of why rules and chat bans have been enforced on people.

Quote from DanielFontan

Is it or is it not ok for Moderators to ban and hold chat abilities hostage for the sake of information -outside chat room rules-. If this is ok...then may it be proclaimed with GREAT PRIDE to say that which is right is right and there is nothing wrong with it..who would be ashamed of saying eating people is wrong?

Of course not, tec has already apologised for that.

Quote from TheLegendofKaito

de·bate
dəˈbāt/
noun
noun: debate; plural noun: debates
1.
a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.
aargue about (a subject), especially in a formal manner

Key word underlined there

Quote from TheLegendofKaito

Basically, a formal argument. I am sorry but I did not give any wild accusations. I gave a picture with an explanation. My claim was deemed to be unfit, so I accepted that. As for " pics or it didn't happen " a pic was given.

Pics or it didn't happen doesn't mean you get to show invalid pics and claim it happened. The issue with tec was a misunderstanding, and has already been cleared up. It was not a case of egotistical power abuse.

Quote from TheLegendofKaito

Apparently he was banned because he hated an admin personally, contradiction to what you said. As for psychologically wary, I suppose I was misunderstood. I meant that when you are accused of something, you tend be more cautious, either consciously or subconsciously. I have no problem with admins telling people to stop spamming. Why would I? Also the print screen button just copies the picture. There is no website I know of that lets you paste it.

You were given THREE websites by DAZ and co earlier. You misunderstood and now continue to use that misunderstanding as evidence?

When you are accused of something that happened, you tend to be more cautious. No power abuse has happened here. Requesting thread lock, this is just going in circles because Kaito does not listen to a word we say (or the stick page rules, evidently).

While all you guys say "oh man this guys multiposted oh youre so gonna get it" only one person actually reported the posts.

Also, if more minimodding were to be done, it won't be a warning, but an infraction instead. See other thread for more info.

Quote from _Ai_

While all you guys say "oh man this guys multiposted oh youre so gonna get it" only one person actually reported the posts.

and knowing is half the battle

so...does anyone know who is the person/s who would handle a renegade moderator?

That would be CrazyJay/Brock.