goldenraptor wrote: Agreed. Its a double standard, really. We’re set out to protect against racism, but we’re all supposed to protect those being racist...

I disagree completely and openly with Zucas’s argument.

Shadow of the Night wrote: I think this site just needs a new set of moderators. Firewolf and Cid can stay because they\'ve been a mod for less then a year. Mods should be changed out yearly and positions should be given to newer but still trustworthy members. to keep it fresh and to keep them all thinking the same ways, It\'s obvious that a person who was on the site for two years will have different views then a person who\'s been around for 6 months. That results in, as Online Predator said, contradictions betweem them. However, if you keep all of the moderators in the same timeframe and even age group they\'ll think about the same way and will contradict each other\'s decisions even less.

Zucas wrote: I still think our mods are too damn lenient on things and actually agree with 21 on one thing that they need to follow the rules and interepret it the same way.

I really think Bjarne needs to talk with all his moderators and really go through a long process of the rules and what deserves banning and deletion or locking. But other than that mods will be left to enforce the rules as they see fit hopefully with an accurate interpretation of what is stated in the rules.

But I guess on another thing it\'s kinda impossible for people to interpret the same things in the same ways.

Shadow of the Night wrote: I think this site just needs a new set of moderators. Firewolf and Cid can stay because they\'ve been a mod for less then a year. Mods should be changed out yearly and positions should be given to newer but still trustworthy members. to keep it fresh and to keep them all thinking the same ways, It\'s obvious that a person who was on the site for two years will have different views then a person who\'s been around for 6 months. That results in, as Online Predator said, contradictions betweem them. However, if you keep all of the moderators in the same timeframe and even age group they\'ll think about the same way and will contradict each other\'s decisions even less.

goldenraptor wrote: With all due respect, during the years in which _lashing_ and SA-X and I were controlling these threads, they were generally fine. After most members had racked up 6000+ posts they felt that they are eligible for a moderation committee. Our newest moderators are generally entirely my idea: indeed, it was I who asked for Cid and Firewolf to be hired at one time, and I asked Bjarne to make Weeman a moderator. So I do feel insulted to a great degree here, although I cannot place as to why and there is no reason to for blame. However, I think it may be from being told that my job is inadequate in ways and a failure to elaborate in which ways it is.

This is a personal lash against you, just my thoughts on that idea.

fuckyfuckerfuckingmcfuckfuck69 wrote: GR, just asking, but why did you want weeman to be a mod?

Zucas wrote:

Actually, like me, you were warned for strong harassment, spamming with unnecessary and excessive hate, and discrimination towards others opinions.

Zucas wrote:

So we should protect Christians even though there strong anti semitism and hate towards Muslims that caused in many deaths. And we should protect the Muslims and the Jews even though they have fought for thousands of years for territories resulting in many deaths.

I don’t agree with the Nazi way nor would I ever support them in any way. I was only joking around as anything to have gotten 21 banned would have been fine with me. Lesser of 2 evils.

But now what you said is a double standard. If we shouldn’t defend Nazis cause of their discrimination and mass genocides then why should we defend other religions/philosophies such as Christianity, Islamic, and Judaism when they have doen the exact same thing in history. That’s a real double standard.

Online Predator wrote:

Excatly, that was the stupidest thing to happen. banned for discrimination of Nazi-like opinions.

Shadow of the Night wrote:

I would imagine that at the time he showed a lot of promise. In fact, up until the last year or so he was still showing a lot of promise. But now he seems angry all the time, I think he\'s going through puberty.

Shadow of the Night wrote:

I never said that you were inadequate, just that the older moderators might be a bit too old. Of course this that idea would only be an extreme solution that probably won\'t even work. I just pointed out what others forums try to do. Please don\'t take it as a personal attack upon you, SA-X, or Toltalitus.

I did however bring up several ideas to Bjarne in the feedback section, and that idea was one of them. But I made sure to stress that the other two ideas would be a much better solution.

Shadow of the Night wrote: Bjarne, here lately there has been a lot of talk about the moderators having different views on how rules are to be handled and punishments given out. I have a couple suggestions that you should consider. I will order them by which would be most effective.

1. You talk with each Moderator as a group possibly in a eternal chat room or a thread that only you guys can see. During this talk you all work together to determine how each situation should be handled.

2. You do a major overhaul on the site rules, going highly indepth and explaining every situation imaginable thoroughly and tell us right on the rules page how mods should handle he thing.

3. You dump all the mods you have and hire a new team, all of them being about the same age and having joined the site about the same time. This way most of them will think about the same way, or enough so that they won\\\'t be handing out punishments for things other mods said didn\\\'t need warnings or bannings.

Out of the 3 ideas number 1 would be the most effective and number 3 might not even work. But I\\\'d recommend both 1 and 2. I\\\'m saying this because pretty much everybody else is too busy complaining and flaming each other to do it.

Shadow of the Night wrote: I\\\'d like to point out that idea 3 is only up there because I\\\'ve seen larger forums do it. They generally try to change the staff up every year as well. The problem is that it keeps the members from getting to know the moderators too well, and thus they always feel a sense of fear because they don\\\'t know how the new staff will act. So I wouldn\\\'t recommend number 3 at all. I think that you need to do both 1 and 2 for the best results.

fuckyfuckerfuckingmcfuckfuck69 wrote: GR, just asking, but why did you want weeman to be a mod?