Regarding "anarchy"

BadScript · **Regarding "anarchy" -** 08-26-2003, 07:43 AM

1) The “anarchy” status was intentional. Surprise. As an admittedly neglecting owner, I needed to figure out whether a few certain members were disturbance just because they "want aa.com to become a better website and couldn’t get it" or it is their lifelong purpose to aggravate other users.

2) I think I have the answer, appropriate actions taken.

3) Those who were banned: Please visit us again riding on your available proxies, so I can ban your ass again. True, I can’t stop you from viewing the website that way; and you should thank god for that, you obviously have nothing better to do.

4) It is a matter of fact that I haven’t been around for a while, so I don’t blame you for not remembering / knowing what kind of a person I am. You crossed the line. Period.

5) GG. I think that’s how it is spelled around here lately, erm.

The anarchy period will last till Sunday, this Sunday.

Gerv5501 · 08-26-2003, 07:52 AM

--------------- thank you come again ------------

BadScript.

mrangry · 08-26-2003, 07:57 AM

hi who r u is this ur site?? i never seen u post here b4!!!

ED! · 08-26-2003, 10:03 AM

Unbelievable.

Ydiss · 08-26-2003, 10:05 AM

BS, please replace me as mod here. I had a lot of plans and suggestions to make to the mod team and was looking forward to trying to make this place fairer for everyone - I was hoping it would be a fresh start whereby new rules would be agreed and everyone would have a chance to adhere to them, along with a fair and consistent punishment system (you know fullwell there's not been a consistency to banning and warning here for a very long time) so that everyone would be treated the same.

However, I see that such an idealistic situation was not in your agenda, and as such you've taken what action you felt necessary (as is your right, of course).

I'm dissapointed that you did not allow the new mod team to even start before you made these actions. Consequently I have been unable to propose my ideas and I have now seen a large amount of my friends here been banned.

Whilst I agree they have contravened your rules frequently in the past they are certainly not the only ones. To ban only them and no one else is not fair. Particularly because they have frequently complained and stated their opinions about how this place has been run for the last 8 months.

You've ignored the complaints about Bazooka Joe, in particular. Whether any were made directly to you, I don't know, but it is plainly evident that a huge ammount of dissent here originated from reaction to his modding methods.

I am in no way pinning all of the blame on him, because that would be grossly unfair, but the fact that he seems to have not been even fed-back or suggested different methods to controlling these forums shows a totall lack of regard for the members here, and that's not just the "vets", as the saying goes these days.

I disagreed a lot with the way BJ admined here - I had a lot of suggestions for him to maybe help him (if he didn't just ignore them) and at that stage possibly the modding team could have started fresh.

If a compromise was reached and still ED, Gerv, Tripper et all continued to cause disruption then they would have been dealt with in the process that could have been in place.

So, I'm refusing the mod position as I don't think what has happened is fair and I do not want to be a part of that. It is only a forum for a game, as you say, but I hold a lot of trust in my judgment of what is important; Friendship, fairness and consistency are important to me, wherever they are applied.

I just think it is skewed that you allow a forum to be moderated by a person who acts in a way that the vast majority of the users disagree with and yet you ban those who have expressed their concerns about him time and time again - That person is given another chance to mod, and yet those members, who's complaints were totally ignored, are being banned because they spoke up and hit a brick wall.

Why should they behave if they're ignored for over 8 months?

As I said before you came back, it is a shame that only the events that occured just recently were enough to get you to turn your attention to this place.

You've accepted some responsibility for the decline here and you do pay for this site... However, you don't pay for it to rot. There is a community here that needs a good strong group of adult, mature and reasonable mods that don't fucking contribute to the flame wars and spam as much as the offenders do - and that is aimed at no one particular person.

Much much more could have been done to allow the older and newer members here get along and adhere to the rules. It wasn't and I think that everyone, and I mean everyone should have been given a chance to start again under new management.

As it stands, I wasn't even given a chance to make a difference - That is what dissapoints me the most.

ED! · 08-26-2003, 10:08 AM

I wouldnt resign. Would just mean Jasper would be put in your place.

And why do I constantly get billed as top flamer? I would love for someone very clearly and concisely show how I have constantly broken forum rules. I dont give a damn about being banned, but I'd honestly like anyone of my detractors to step on up and put their money where their mouthes are.

Ydiss · 08-26-2003, 10:15 AM

[quote="ED!":e826f]I wouldnt resign. Would just mean Jasper would be put in your place.

And why do I constantly get billed as top flamer? I would love for someone very clearly and concisely show how I have constantly broken forum rules. I dont give a damn about being banned, but I'd honestly like anyone of my detractors to step on up and put their money where their mouthes are.[/quote:e826f] You haven't, and nor has a lot of those who have been banned. I see a lot more transgressions from other members who remain unbanned.

Zoner · 08-26-2003, 10:18 AM

I s'pose I can challenge you to do the same thing: How have I done you dirty in the past, ED?

The only thing I don't like is how you constantly lump me in with the actions of others. That's not a bannable offense...that's just being an arsehole.

ED! · 08-26-2003, 10:23 AM

I would say towards the end of your first career you went down the road that so many others have gone - slagging the site and questioning its relevance on one hand, and trying to "appeal" to the masses on the other hand. To me, if you're frustrated with the site, or feel it has no merit or whatever - even if its for a moment, it might be time to step down.

At some point the locked threads, and the OVER OBVIOUS PRESENCE of moderation became too much. A locked thread pic was funny the first time Loctis did it, but the numerous other clones and the unneccesary barbs injected just pushed it over the edge. Like i said, you as a moderator became too obvious and it rubbed people the wrong way. The only person who succesfully pulled that off was the BallWook.

The most I could think of someone saying to me regarding my actions is that I'm what - loud mouthed? That's it? Cant remember any spam, or any porn (lately, and that was almost a year ago), or any flames - and no typing long winded replies and going back and forth with someone is NOT a flame constrary to what the Joe Administration would have you all believe.

[DAS REICH] Blitz · **Re: Regarding "anarchy" -** 08-26-2003, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadScript

1) The “anarchy” status was intentional. Surprise. As an admittedly neglecting owner, I needed to figure out whether a few certain members were disturbance just because they "want aa.com to become a better website and couldn’t get it" or it is their lifelong purpose to aggravate other users.

2) I think I have the answer, appropriate actions taken.

3) Those who were banned: Please visit us again riding on your available proxies, so I can ban your ass again. True, I can’t stop you from viewing the website that way; and you should thank god for that, you obviously have nothing better to do.

4) It is a matter of fact that I haven’t been around for a while, so I don’t blame you for not remembering / knowing what kind of a person I am. You crossed the line. Period.

5) GG. I think that’s how it is spelled around here lately, erm.

The anarchy period will last till Sunday, this Sunday.

Sieg Heil BS, The Fuhrer has returned....

Zoner · 08-26-2003, 10:25 AM

You know what, I agree with all of that, ED.

gtboys34 · 08-26-2003, 10:37 AM

Why does bs keep on screwing up Gerv's post count?? And now he's even deleted tripper's. oOo:

ED! · 08-26-2003, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoner91

You know what, I agree with all of that, ED.

I hope so. I agree that this IS bs site and he can do with it what he pleases. I dont have to agree with how he does do that though.

I'm of the opinion that a mod should walk softly and carry a big stick. The only way I should be able to tell a mod from a member is by their names up there at the top. I think after awhile Noctis realized this and slowed his roll. So at the very least theres ONE moderator who listened to the people and switched up his style.

Drew · 08-26-2003, 10:55 AM

Aye sir. I started locking threads quietly.. while the LOCT pic threads still showed up once in awhile (but yeah, they did get overdone, my bad). Admittedly I didn't really know what I was doing, but I learned my lesson.

Ydiss · 08-26-2003, 10:57 AM

[quote="ED!":136c9]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoner91

You know what, I agree with all of that, ED.

So at the very least theres ONE moderator who listened to the people and switched up his style.[/quote:136c9]

That's all that can be asked of a mod - Willingness to accept critisism and change if it is warranted.

Sadly, and this is my biggest gripe with him, Bazooka Joe is too stubborn to do this - I have rarely ever see him reply to critisism with a "Sorry". He should try it. Believe me, you feel a lot better for doing it. Then, whoever is flaming you has nothing to flame about - They may think they have "won" but, in reality, you've both gained something.

It takes more strength of character to admit you're wrong than to say anything here in anger.