Tacho reversed a warning I issued. - Page 2

**TheRascalKing** · 12-31-2012, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by p6867

We don't let people spout anti drug rhetoric in bltc, we don't let people bemoan the ills of shoplifting in BI, and we don't let people decry the evils of firearms in WC, for if we do, then that is the only thread topic that will occur in those forums. Am i wrong in this?

Lolwat? Just the other day I was discussing the downsides of home invasion and robbery.

**TheRascalKing** · 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazzyass

I've yet to have it explained how, in any way, it's off topic. Poor taste? Matter of preference, but that has nothing to do with relevance. Satirically bringing up a good point is not being off-topic. I just want to know if it's worth taking up with the admin or not. I know it isn't a big deal, but this guy is a shithead and i've heard of him censoring other posts. Rubs me the wrong way.

...

**Unwyred** · #53 12-31-2012, 06:29 PM

Though I disagree with the reasons behind why the warning was given (it was only one instance, not repeatedly), in no way do I approve that this was reversed by any mod not covering W&C.

You are modded to your specific forums to cover your forums. The only reason you should be modding anything outside of your own forum would be if someone was releasing PI or spamming the site.

Under no circumstances are mods to reverse another mod's infraction; that is the job of the global mod or the admins.

Next time you disagree with an infraction or a warning given by another mod on this site, take it up with myself or kite-- and we will handle it as we see fit.

Tacho, you were invited back to the staff after having been dismissed for problems between you and another mod. Do not make this a problem again.

**TheRascalKing** · 12-31-2012, 06:41 PM

So, 5.56 will be allowed to continue to take retaliatory action against members who hurt his ego/disagree with him, correct?

I won't reverse any more infractions, this was just blatant bullshit. Crazzyass and I were arguing with him in a thread, he was losing, his feelings were hurt, so he found crazzy's post in W/C and infracted him for it, he would have infracted me too if he didn't know better.

**Unwyred** · #55 12-31-2012, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheRascalKing

So, 5.56 will be allowed to continue to take retaliatory action against members who hurt his ego/disagree with him, correct?

I won't reverse any more infractions, this was just blatant bullshit. Crazzyass and I were arguing with him in a thread, he was losing, his feelings were hurt, so he found crazzy's post in W/C and infracted him for it, he would have infracted me too if he didn't know better.

No. Like I said, I didn't agree with the warning he gave.

What I'm saying is to follow protocol instead of taking this into your own hands.

**Rust** · #56 12-31-2012, 06:59 PM

What's the protocol when a mod has been doing things like this for months, not to mention spamming other forums?

**5.56 SS109** · #57 $Add Infraction for 5.56 SS109$ 12-31-2012, 07:29 PM

I'd be interested in knowing why admins even remotely care about input from someone who, by their own admission, no longer wants to be part of the mod team and simply doesn't care whether or not their actions get them demodded.

Rust needs to be demodded, someone as out of control and with such disregard for the rules has no place on the mod team.

**Rust** · #58 12-31-2012, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5.56 SS109

I'd be interested in knowing why admins even remotely care about input from someone who, by their own admission, no longer wants to be part of the mod team and simply doesn't care whether or not their actions get them demodded.

Rust needs to be demodded, someone as out of control and with such disregard for the rules has no place on the mod team.

I am going to be demodded, dummy. Nobody said I wasn't.

They are just handling your bullshit first. They correctly determined that your warning was bullshit. Both because the infraction is supposed to be for repeated off-topic replies - and not for a simple joke after your ego was hurt in other threads - and because the protocol calls for a verbal warning unless it's a more severe violation of the rules.

Now that the easy question (i.e. whether you were full of shit and your infraction was complete bullshit) was taken care of, now they are going to tackle the harder question of how they handle me and Tacho.

Tacho, they will probably just give a verbal warning and nothing else. To me, they'll probably demod soon and then either give me a warning or an infraction.

**5.56 SS109** · #59 $Add Infraction for 5.56 SS109$ 12-31-2012, 08:19 PM

What infraction?

**Rust** · #60 12-31-2012, 08:44 PM

Huh?

**TheRascalKing** · 12-31-2012, 08:58 PM

He knows what you're talking about, he's playing the fool, like usual.

**psychomanthis** · 12-31-2012, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5.56 SS109

What infraction?

Disobeying an admin i'd reckon.

**The Cheshire Cat** · 01-01-2013, 01:01 AM

Free speech is lost on each and every one of you right now.

For shame, for mother fucking shame.

**The Cheshire Cat** · 01-01-2013, 01:07 AM

*On the forums*
"This guy doesn't like guns! Lets not let him speak or argue their point!"
*warning/infraction/ban*

*In todays news, someone shot up a place*
*cue news*
"Gun owners are wrong, and we won't let them get a say at all in our broadcast because that's how we feel!"
*laws/bannings/rights infringment*

SAME. SHIT. DIFFERENT SIDES.

All of you need to get the fuck over yourselves and just... I don't know. Have fun?

**The Cheshire Cat** · 01-01-2013, 01:12 AM

And for fucks sake, it's just a damn warning. Not a fucking life sentence for someone that just murdered your child that the judge (another mod) reversed.

**The Cheshire Cat** · 01-01-2013, 01:13 AM

Happy fucking New Years.

**5.56 SS109** · #67 $Add Infraction for 5.56 SS109$ 01-01-2013, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psychomanthis

Disobeying an admin i'd reckon.

I was asking what infraction I gave.

I don't recall infracting anyone, seems like someone is trying to make it sound worse than it was.

**mizled** · #68 $Add Infraction for mizled$ 01-01-2013, 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5.56 SS109

I was asking what infraction I gave.

I don't recall infracting anyone, seems like someone is trying to make it sound worse than it was.

You warned him that he might get infracted! Don't you realize how much that can harm a poasters friends psyche?

**panthrax** · #69 $Add Infraction for panthrax$ 01-01-2013, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by p6867

We don't let people spout anti drug rhetoric in bltc, ...

Not true.

Better Living Through Chemistry is for the discussion of drugs. It doesn't necessarily have to be for the support of drugs. It could very well be against drugs.

However, starting a "negative towards drugs" thread in BLTC is not likely to be welcomed with open arms, but the fact remains that it is allowed. It's still drug discussion, just from a different perspective.

As far as what is going on in this thread and the issue at hand, if you're not a moderator of a particular forum, then don't fuck with it. Leave it alone. It's not your duty, responsibility, or right to try and moderate it. That's why we have Admins.

If you have an issue or a vendetta against another moderator, take it up with an admin instead of issuing acts of revenge because the moderator you don't like once (in your eyes) trolled your forum. Don't lower yourself to the same standard the one you're angry over did. Just bring it up to an admin.

I don't know...

**Rust** · #70 01-01-2013, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mizled

You warned him that he might get infracted! Don't you realize how much that can harm a poasters friends psyche?

Someone made a joke! And then someone else reversed a warning that should have been reversed! The horror!

**Mantikore** · #71 $Add Infraction for Mantikore$ 01-01-2013, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unwyred

Next time you disagree with an infraction or a warning given by another mod on this site, take it up with myself or kite-- and we will handle it as we see fit.

Pretty much this. I dont check the M&A boards all that often but I havent seen a lot of comments when these supposed transgressions have occurred in the past. Although I have seen a few other cases where an unwarranted infraction was given but was reversed because the other mods brought it to attention, pretty much by making a lot of noise in the respective infraction thread

**LavaRed** · #72 $Add Infraction for LavaRed$ 01-01-2013, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by p6867

We don't let people spout anti drug rhetoric in bltc, we don't let people bemoan the ills of shoplifting in BI, and we don't let people decry the evils of firearms in WC, for if we do, then that is the only thread topic that will occur in those forums. Am i wrong in this?

No, this is exactly the careful balance that I have personally fought for in WC for ages. This and NOTHING more.

**LavaRed** · #73 $Add Infraction for LavaRed$ 01-01-2013, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rust

Yes, you are. We let people bemoan politics in Der Politik. We let people bemoan religions and spirituality, in Religion and Spirituality. We let people bemoan conspiracies, in It's a Conspiracy...

Why is the counter-argument to a position, not a perfectly valid and on-topic position to take?

If it's disrupting a thread by going off-topic (e.g. If the topic of the thread is that the OP wants feedback on whether they should get a Beretta 92S or a Glock 17, and then someone starts railing against the second amendment ) then sure, step in. But if the discussion is about gun-control or legislation that deals with whether or not certain (types of) guns are necessary (as this thread was), then a position against guns should be perfectly on-topic.

crazyass made one joke, and it was done to make his point about his position on guns. Not only should that be on-topic, but the warning has to be for repeatedly posting off-topic replies or threads. He made one joke. Where is the repeated off-topic posts? Nowhere.

I completely agree with your position here... Which is why I have for ages fought to keep WC as a strictly technical forum, while relegating discussions about the second amendment or the morality of owning guns to other forums such as politics and the like. That way the problem can be eliminated entirely.

**Jive Talka** · #74 $Add Infraction for Jive Talka$ 01-02-2013, 12:49 AM

lol

**Cory** · #75 $Add Infraction for Cory$ 01-02-2013, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5.56 SS109

Not even remotely.

Making jokes that compare law abiding gun owners to mass murders in a thread about gun rights is not acceptable on any planet.

I don't care who you are.

Is this some kind of fucking joke? Christ in Heaven could you be anymore full of shit?

It' blatantly obvious to everyone that the only reason you targeted crazyass is because he hurt your feelings. You have lost any legitimacy as a moderator for your grave abuse and should be de-modded.

**skygear** · #76 $Add Infraction for skygear$ 01-03-2013, 01:34 AM

Sit back, listen and relax...

The Aston Shuffle Vs Nicky Romero - Sunrise Of Toulouse (The Kovacs Brothers Mashup Remix) - YouTube

enjoy this eyecandy

Dada Life Vs Swedish House Mafia Feed The Greyhound The Kovacs Brothers Mashup Remix (adult version) - YouTube

**psychomanthis** · 01-03-2013, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LavaRed

keep WC as a strictly technical forum, while relegating discussions about the second amendment or the morality of owning guns to other forums such as politics and the like. That way the problem can be eliminated entirely.

I support this motion. Aside from anything else, it would also prevent a lot of butthurt

**LavaRed** · #78 $Add Infraction for LavaRed$ 01-04-2013, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psychomanthis

I support this motion. Aside from anything else, it would also prevent a lot of butthurt

I largely succeeded in doing that first by asking people nicely, then creating a Morals thread for people like Ashley who just wouldn't stop.