# I find the banning of Fable dumb



## Freija (Aug 29, 2009)

Seriously... 


anyone with me ?


----------



## pfft (Aug 29, 2009)

yeah! hell yeah! i miss fable! why did you take away fable! for this reason


----------



## Dman (Aug 29, 2009)

its a tad absurd


----------



## Rolling~Star (Aug 29, 2009)

loosen up, yo


----------



## The Mexican (Aug 29, 2009)

I concur       .


----------



## Fuse (Aug 29, 2009)

Free Fable!

Save the trees!

Buy dolphin-safe tuna!


----------



## Susano-o (Aug 29, 2009)

what year is this?


----------



## kidloco (Aug 29, 2009)

im wiht everyone here!!, why she get ban? if the sign is purerly legal in the NF and we know is true, dont come wiht moral or shit because when is legal is legal and that ban was injust if was for the sign only, because is completerly in the law of the NF

free fable!!!!!

tuna fish is the best


----------



## The Mexican (Aug 29, 2009)

06'                 .


----------



## OniTasku (Aug 29, 2009)

Sorry, but dealing with it like Fable did, the ban was just (pending on how long it is). I've never been huge on people getting shit for their signatures and avatars, unless it is grossly inappropriate. Fable's signature really isn't all that bad, but hey, what can you really do if a Staff member calls you out on it?

You can either adhere to the warning(s), talk it out and try to come to some sort of a compromise, or just...well, say fuck it and ignore the warnings and get banned.


----------



## Freija (Aug 29, 2009)

The warning was dumb itself, the signature is not even close to the shit I've seen, hell I've seen loli sets gone by without censorship so why is this suddenly explicit after sporting it for a week and several staff members seeing it... apparently only Hiroshi thinks it should be censored suddenly.

But knowing staff suddenly all of them are going to say it's offensive now due to this.


----------



## Susano-o (Aug 29, 2009)

wait, what year?


----------



## Freija (Aug 29, 2009)

06'... that one year where you helped us in endeavours such as this!


DID YOU FORGET YOUR ROOTS SUSANO-O?


----------



## Koi (Aug 29, 2009)

I'm offended by how low and misplaced her tits are.


----------



## Freija (Aug 29, 2009)

Draw it better then


----------



## pfft (Aug 29, 2009)

i dont think they are that bad. i seen worse sigs before than this.


----------



## Freija (Aug 29, 2009)

10 bucks we'll get a lame message and a loq on this


----------



## The Mexican (Aug 30, 2009)

Lol we were all repped sealed.


----------



## OniTasku (Aug 30, 2009)

Hm, seems as though you guys were all just signature banned. Well, that solves that, I suppose. Oh, and rep sealed.


----------



## Grimmjow (Aug 30, 2009)

It wasn't a banable cause.


----------



## Freija (Aug 30, 2009)

still have this


----------



## Gooba (Aug 30, 2009)

Make an argument in here and we'll listen, all of you putting it in your sig is only going to polarize the staff and make it a lot less likely you'll get what you want.


----------



## Freija (Aug 30, 2009)

Please, Kira Yamato sports more explicit sets than that.


I don't even feel like arguing for this as it's so stupid.

Bravo, the staff has outdone themselves.

Even if I decided to argue you guys would say "She didn't listen to staff, kthxbye" /locked and we all know it.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Aug 30, 2009)

*It was pretty retarded. 

Hiroshi seems like a really nice person, but a horrible mod tbh. I have nothing against her personally but chicken noodle soup you know. 

Louis Armstrong and all that shit.

EDIT: Oh shit I thought this was the blender. disregard everything I said, I only mean to appease the mods. 
*


----------



## Cirus (Aug 30, 2009)

Freija said:


> Seriously...
> 
> 
> anyone with me ?


I am presuming it was for the signature not being under a spoilertag. It was probably deemed sexual explicit under the rules, and as such was required to be spoiler tagged. The staff put it under a spoiler tag I presume and the member removed the spoiler tag. Thus breaking the rules a second time intentionally. Which is what resulted in the ban.

An argument should have been made as to why it was not a spoiler tagable deal before doing such again. Which would have been better because you would then be arguing the findings into such rules rather then the rules themselves. Rule changes can be made after findings towards the rulings have made. Thus correcting all problems.


Location of rule being talked about:  

Link removed

*II.* Any type of pornography is prohibited in avatars and signatures. Anything sexually explicit but not pornographic must be placed under spoiler tags (defined by the discretion of NarutoForums staff).


----------



## Freija (Aug 30, 2009)

Cirus said:


> I am presuming it was for the signature not being under a spoilertag.  It was probably deemed sexual explicit under the rules, and as such was required to be spoiler tagged.  The staff put it under a spoiler tag I presume and the member removed the spoiler tag.  Thus breaking the rules a second time intentionally.  Which is what resulted in the ban.
> 
> An argument should have been made as to why it was not a spoiler tagable deal before doing such again.  Which would have been better because you would then be arguing the findings into such rules rather then the rules themselves.  Rule changes can be made after findings towards the rulings have made.  Thus correcting all problems.



And kira's previous sigs have not been?


Hell several staff members previously saw the set and didn't react but when hiroshi decided to ban fable they suddenly are unanimous that it was too explicit?

Fuck that, staff ganging up as usual.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Aug 30, 2009)

*Isn't it possible to sig ban someone? *


----------



## Freija (Aug 30, 2009)

They sig banned all of us.


edit: inb4 random excuse / staff member logging off forgetting this.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Aug 30, 2009)

*Why the fuck are you gonna ban someone for untagging a sig that was wrongly tagged in the first place? 

Sig banning Fable would have been more than enough to, you know, ban her sig. Kinda reminds me of that time I was banned for quoting Kaen and calling her a lunatic. **Taking shit farther than you need to just leaves an unnecessary streak of poop you're gonna slip on later. *


----------



## Freija (Aug 30, 2009)

hmmm, how did I predict that the admin viewing this would log off hoping it's forgotten by tomorrow or that he's come up with a better answer ?


----------



## Cirus (Aug 30, 2009)

Freija said:


> And kira's previous sigs have not been?
> 
> 
> Hell several staff members previously saw the set and didn't react but when hiroshi decided to ban fable they suddenly are unanimous that it was too explicit?
> ...


 
As I said before.  Make the argument that the findings to consider that under the rules were not valid.  I saw that sig, and it did not show any bodyparts, but the woman in the sig was in a provocative pose scantaly clad at best.  

I personally think that it should have waranted a signature ban instead of a forum ban, but that is not up to me to decide.  Also considering as to how many people are signature banned at the moment I think that it would be wise to find out the methodology of thinking that was to go behind the choices the staff made regaurding such.  The staff are the accusors (the prosicutors in the case) and to for them to form a logical argument and not create a argumentative falacy they are required to show proof as to the cause of their actions comming to such (which may or may not happen).

Location of logical fallacies:  

Kyasurin Yakuto

38. SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF

Description: The burden of proof is always on the person making the assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of "argumentum ad ignorantium," is a fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

Then create the argument that such was possibly done wrong for findings and that it doesn't apply.

If memory does serve me correctly there was also a sig going around that showed a naked Naruto and Sasuke together standing up.  Horible as it was that was something in my opinion to enforce under such spoilertag rules. (I will go check to see if that is still around and report it if I find it.)

Still this is all just my side on what I see.



Pimp of Pimps said:


> *Isn't it possible to sig ban someone? *


 Yes.


----------



## Freija (Aug 30, 2009)

Cirus said:


> As I said before.  Make the argument that the findings to consider that under the rules were not valid.  I saw that sig, and it did not show any bodyparts, but the woman in the sig was in a provocative pose scantaly clad at best.
> 
> I personally think that it should have waranted a signature ban instead of a forum ban, but that is not up to me to decide.  Also considering as to how many people are signature banned at the moment I think that it would be wise to find out the methodology of thinking that was to go behind the choices the staff made regaurding such.  The staff are the accusors (the prosicutors in the case) and to for them to form a logical argument and not create a argumentative falacy they are required to show proof as to the cause of their actions comming to such (which may or may not happen).
> 
> ...


I've attempted several times arguing with staff and it ends with ignoration and no change to locked thread and saying it will change but it doesn't, thus you can stop playing the "I want to be the next mod" and remove yourself from this thread because I am not the slightest bit interested in what you're writing.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 30, 2009)

This same mod always seems to get on people's bad side...


----------



## Freija (Aug 30, 2009)

dun dun dun


----------



## Cirus (Aug 30, 2009)

Freija said:


> I've attempted several times arguing with staff and it ends with ignoration and no change to locked thread and saying it will change but it doesn't, thus you can stop playing the "I want to be the next mod" and remove yourself from this thread because I am not the slightest bit interested in what you're writing.


 Maybe it is possible to change up your argumentative style?  A flat out argument doesn't win, but a logical one does.  After that point if you are proven correct in said assumptions anything afterwards would be considered as a person in the game of chess refusing to acknowledge checkmate and the loss.

Maybe making a thread in the open sinse it pertains to a group of people under this rule would be better.  Much like a class action.  Sinse it is open people would be able to see the proccess of the transpiring actions.  Each side chooses a representative, and a non opinionated third party would be the judge (not staff, former staff, or a persons friend, but truely a person who is non opinionated on the subject.).

The only thing that is missing out of all the disagreements are those pertaining to how such a conclusion came to be for the rule and decided punishment.

Still all be it pasts not know from such member being banned the conclusion answers are beyond my grasp at the moment, but a worth while investigation into such is deemed worthy in my opinion.


----------



## Freija (Aug 30, 2009)

Cirus said:


> Maybe it is possible to change up your argumentative style?  A flat out argument doesn't win, but a logical one does.  After that point if you are proven correct in said assumptions anything afterwards would be considered as a person in the game of chess refusing to acknowledge checkmate and the loss.
> 
> Maybe making a thread in the open sinse it pertains to a group of people under this rule would be better.  Much like a class action.  Sinse it is open people would be able to see the proccess of the transpiring actions.  Each side chooses a representative, and a non opinionated third party would be the judge (not staff, former staff, or a persons friend, but truely a person who is non opinionated on the subject.).
> 
> ...



You really can't take a hint can you ? /ignored.


----------



## Cirus (Aug 30, 2009)

Freija said:


> You really can't take a hint can you ? /ignored.


 I am only trying to help you and the others who are in your same boat.  If you want to ignore me and the information I bring to the table that is fine.


----------



## Cirus (Aug 30, 2009)

Freija said:


> I wish it would say "wannabe staffmembers message is hidden" :/ oh well


 Don't worry.  I don't consider that flamebaiting and deleting it wont work.  I thought you knew me better then that.

Still if you want to keep me on your ignore list that is fine.

Will a staff member please close this thread sinse it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 30, 2009)

Cirus said:


> Will a staff member please close this thread sinse it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.



He seems to be gaining support so I really disagree with that...


----------



## Freija (Aug 30, 2009)

Cirus said:


> Don't worry.  I don't consider that flamebaiting and deleting it wont work.  I thought you knew me better then that.
> 
> Still if you want to keep me on your ignore list that is fine.
> 
> Will a staff member please close this thread sinse it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.


I just forgot what it said exactly so I ignored you for a second so I could quote that 

And you don't consider it baiting, but aaaaaaaawwwwwwwhhhh, I've been banned for so much less 

And deleting it doesn't really work but it's a slight redeeming factor which you can say "I thought it was too much and deleted it fast" or something and you might get out of shit 



Seto Kaiba said:


> He seems to be gaining support so I really disagree with that...


And it doesn't go anywhere because no staff member is posting, just cirus with long articles about how a logical debate with a wall works... and with a wall I mean no staff member responds, and if they do it's with hours delay so in the end the ban is over before you've gotten 2 posts out.

I know how they work, which is why I wrote that Gooba would log out before responding...


AND LOOK AT THAT, HE DID LEAVE


----------



## Cirus (Aug 30, 2009)

Seto Kaiba said:


> He seems to be gaining support so I really disagree with that...


 Gaining support against the staff doesn't work.  Look at all the previous times things have happened where there was a lot of support on the forum for such a cause and nothing was still done.  A different way of going about it is what is needed.

I am not disagreeing with the guy cause I think he does have a point that needs to be thought out, but I am playing devils advocate here saying that a different thing needs to happen.


----------



## Freija (Aug 30, 2009)

Nothing will happen which is my point exactly.

Because the staff keep together and I quote them when I say this "we're all really close friends"


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 30, 2009)

Based on something that was shared with me a long time ago, the staff seems very fearful of any discord among them, so when one of them take an action all the others fall in line even if they don't genuinely agree with it. Because of that, a lot of shit gets by that should have never happened in the first place. Honestly, I think that's a really shitty way to run things if that is the case.


----------



## Freija (Aug 30, 2009)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Based on something that was shared with me a long time ago, the staff seems very fearful of any discord among them, so when one of them take an action all the others fall in line even if they don't genuinely agree with it. Because of that, a lot of shit gets by that should have never happened in the first place. Honestly, I think that's a really shitty way to run things if that is the case.



You know what... I've decided that I like you...

At least I'm not alone in noticing this...


They also tend to forgive female members more easily for things 



Ok so maybe in 5 hours or so I'll get a fucking response to any of the million posts I've done so far in this thread.... until then I bid you goodnight


----------



## Cirus (Aug 30, 2009)

Freija said:


> Nothing will happen which is my point exactly.
> 
> Because the staff keep together and I quote them when I say this "we're all really close friends"


When you give up a point after it is done then you have lost. Even after the punishment has ended you keep hammering at it untill something happens. Otherwise nothing will be done about it. How else would people who have been released from a prision sentence find justice years later to be proven innocent, have their good name reinstated, and get an appoligy.

Close friends should not play any important part in anything. It should go down to the right thing being done. While no one except for the staff knows what goes on behind closed doors I hope that isn't the case for what you posted. Cause really if that were the case then that would be really sad. There would be no way for proper justice for people to be done or inforced. It would then be at the will of the loudest speaking person of the group.

Reason being if everyone is friends when it comes to choices like that then people are more likely to just go along with their friends views even though they may disagree with them. Or they will be less likely to look at things from a fair perspective. Which is why their needs to be people who are not in that mindset looking at things. 


In short basically "Good ol boy system" doesn't work cause it only works for people who are in that group.


----------



## OniTasku (Aug 30, 2009)

Freija, I'll lay it out for you plain and simple. You have yet to articulate one solid point to talk about with the Staff. You complain about them signing off and whatnot, yet there is nothing to discuss. Why should they waste time on something that doesn't even have an argument?

You need to chill out a bit and just let things blow over, that would probably be the best for everyone. Obviously some things might not have been done perfectly, but shit, are we not all allowed our own opinions and vices? Partiality is a joke, so don't jump on a Staff member for something petty like this. They're just trying to do their jobs, and in the end, they are the executors of the NF law. If we don't like it, oh well, it kind of sucks but we move on. Save your time and energy for another day as I'm sure you'll have the chance again.

In short - Give the Staff a freakin' break. They don't pick on individual members for specific reasons (I'd like to think at least), or maybe they do. Oh well. They deal on a daily basis with the redundant idiocy of this entire forum, and are just trying to deal with it however they can. People all too often tend to forget there is a person behind the damn screen, and they're just as human as we are. Let it be.

Keep it to PM's or the private one-on-one section rather than making this a circus. Matters like this never tend to reach a collected conclusion due to comments from the peanut gallery and senseless baiting and flaming (ie: what this thread has boiled down to).


----------



## Hentai (Aug 30, 2009)

WTF


----------



## Cirus (Aug 30, 2009)

Fable said:


> WTF


 Well this is an interesting development we have here.


Ok thread no longer needed.  Time to lock it.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Aug 30, 2009)

I'm not hearing a lot of reasons here.

So far, the only apologetic you've offered for Fable is that "Kira Yamato gets away with worse". While I have no idea what either member's sigs/avatars look like, that is a lame argument and no one is going to seriously entertain it.

Whether someone else gets away with breaking a rule is irrelevant: the fact of the matter is that Fable broke the rules. His sig was spoiler tagged and he removed the spoiler. That's a bannable offense. If you have an objection about fairness, then by all means report Kira Yamato's sig as well.

If you were to stand in front of a judge and say to him "Your honor, you shouldn't punish me for murdering that busload of school children because so-and-so got away with much worse," he'd laugh at you and throw your ass in jail.

You're going to have to find a better argument than that sort of one.


----------



## Zaru (Aug 30, 2009)

Well there's still the question as to why that sig was deemed against the rules in the first place(I'm not saying it's fine that he untagged it again), as no private body parts were revealed, there was no cameltoe, there was no sign of anything remotely resembling a nipple, and she was more clothed than a lot of sigs that run around on this forum freely.

It comes down to some mod raging over a woman being drawn in a position that he/she deems offensive for whatever twisted reason.

The answer to that question is relevant to other members as they now have to fear getting sigs tagged or even banned simply for displaying sexy women in their sig.

THAT'S SERIOUS BUSINESS.


----------



## Jαmes (Aug 30, 2009)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Based on something that was shared with me a long time ago, the staff seems very fearful of any discord among them, so when one of them take an action all the others fall in line even if they don't genuinely agree with it. Because of that, a lot of shit gets by that should have never happened in the first place. Honestly, I think that's a really shitty way to run things if that is the case.



someone in the staff should stand up to this... 

and yes, not placing cj in a tight spot, but his sets are actually not any different from fable's... and if it has been worn for a week now without complain there really shouldn't be anything wrong with it... 

and i see the commotion has brought a call of action... which doesn't really do the concerned justice...


----------



## Hentai (Aug 30, 2009)

I am obviously unbanned and happy, i think we can stop this discussion now. 
I am not complaining, since i knew what i was doing.


----------



## Freija (Aug 30, 2009)

Jello Biafra said:


> I'm not hearing a lot of reasons here.
> 
> So far, the only apologetic you've offered for Fable is that "Kira Yamato gets away with worse". While I have no idea what either member's sigs/avatars look like, that is a lame argument and no one is going to seriously entertain it.
> 
> ...


No, but if I stood in front of my peers who had previously not had any form of problem with said signature before and suddenly change their mind because one of them found it offensive it'd be quite unfair.


And this is ridiculous because that's how the staff works, even Seto Kaiba whom I've never interacted with before noted, if one says one thing you guys follow quite easily... in fact I've seen it on my little tour trip to your sekritmodbase last year. Quite interesting viewing your threads btw, anyway, which leads me to believe that this sig was found offensive for the soul reason that Hiroshi found it insulting, and reporting a staff member for a signature is utterly pointless unless it actually shows some skin which we all know, don't even argue that you'd do shit if I reported, most likely it'd be laughed off/ignored.

The fact that I took up Kira is that you guys must've seen it and deemed it fit, but something less explicit can be deemed unfit simply because it's a regular member 

Say what you wish this kindergarten logic applies quite well on this situation. Even in real courtrooms lawyers refer to previous cases where thus and thus happened.

Where you honestly comparing this to murdering a bus load of children btw?

I should start calling you Kagakusha #2, but then you'd have to call me a terrorist first.



Fable said:


> I am obviously unbanned and happy, i think we can stop this discussion now.
> I am not complaining, since i knew what i was doing.



Not just about you anymore as this whole situation is ridiculous as shit.


edit: inb4 10 hours of waiting.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Aug 30, 2009)

Freija said:


> Say what you wish this kindergarten logic applies quite well on this situation. Even in real courtrooms lawyers refer to previous cases where thus and thus happened.
> 
> Where you honestly comparing this to murdering a bus load of children btw?
> 
> I should start calling you Kagakusha #2, but then you'd have to call me a terrorist first.



Principles of justice must apply in all circumstances, no matter how extreme or banal. That's the very nature of rules/laws. The hyperbolic example was used to point out just how disingenuous the argument you voiced was. It makes no difference what the circumstance is, because the principles must apply universally. That's why we have rules here, not suggestions.

You can laugh off my suggestion of reporting a mod all you want. But there must exist a reciprocal relationship between the staff and the members. We're here to enforce the rules we all agreed upon when we joined the forum. If you don't point out an offense and we don't see it ourselves, then there isn't anything we can do about it.

We're not your enemies here, and quite frankly you shouldn't be worried about the extremely limited amount of power we have over your lives.


----------



## Freija (Aug 30, 2009)

Jello Biafra said:


> Principles of justice must apply in all circumstances, no matter how extreme or banal. That's the very nature of rules/laws. The hyperbolic example was used to point out just how disingenuous the argument you voiced was. It makes no difference what the circumstance is, because the principles must apply universally. That's why we have rules here, not suggestions.



We have rules that don't apply to every member, ergo staff members, and that is not called universally and when you have a system in which the staff members discuss situations and they all fall in line no matter if they disagree or not in order to show the forum a united court then the system is broken.




> We're not your enemies here, and quite frankly you shouldn't be worried about the extremely limited amount of power we have over your lives.


wow, amazing... so I should just stop caring when you fuck up and let it slide because you have no amount of power over my life ?


----------



## Jello Biafra (Aug 30, 2009)

What rules don't apply to us? Enlighten me.

It's the nature of our job that we all endorse the decisions that are made by the staff collectively. If we didn't, then the staff could not function, and we couldn't ensure that rules were enforced fairly.


----------



## Kathutet (Aug 30, 2009)

I've seen much worse (and have used much worse) sigs and sets myself. Him getting banned for a signature that shows nothing but an anime chick in a suggestive position is plain fucking stupid. If that sig was not allowed, 99% of all fangirls should have been perma banned by now for having yaoi sets that don't have much clothing in it either and with much more suggestive shit in it.

She had clothes on, for crying out loud. It didn't show nipples, ass, vagoo or extreme nudity. I honestly hope that Vegeta modfucks every single person with that sig one day.


----------



## Freija (Aug 30, 2009)

Jello Biafra said:


> What rules don't apply to us? Enlighten me.
> 
> It's the nature of our job that we all endorse the decisions that are made by the staff collectively. If we didn't, then the staff could not function, and we couldn't ensure that rules were enforced fairly.



hmmm, maybe I should start with this


Just a nice example of a staff member blatantly whoring which was laughed off with "it's just peK"

And then we have Kira Yamato's sigs which I was talking about, a few years back he sported a few sets from some pedo gag manga called kodomo no something shit, which frankly was very disturbing but was laughed off as well, now I like Kira Yamato but the reason I bring him up is because he's sporting generally more disturbing sets than the set which was currently banned which is why I'm telling you this whole situation is FUCKING BULLSHIT!


So tell me, when does the rules start applying to you? Because I've seen some shit here which was laughed off and shit because you were a staff member.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Aug 30, 2009)

The sig ban came because a mod spoiler tagged his sig, and he unspoilered it. That's his offense. The nature of the image is not what is one trial here.


----------



## Freija (Aug 30, 2009)

YES IT IS BECAUSE THE TAGGING ITSELF WAS DUMB AS FUCK!

And then we got sigbanned for sporting the same sig, are you denying that too?


----------



## Jello Biafra (Aug 30, 2009)

Freija said:


> hmmm, maybe I should start with this
> 
> 
> Just a nice example of a staff member blatantly whoring which was laughed off with "it's just peK"
> ...



Do you seriously think any of the members take something like that seriously? Those are jokes, sometimes in bad taste, but still things that are done not for any gain. And when a staff member does actually break a rule, it is dealt with harshly.

The fact that you don't see it happening means nothing.

Like I said before, he wasn't banned for the sig, he was banned for unspoilering it. If he had such a problem with it, he could have taken it up in Conference room. Instead, he broke the rules so he faces the consequences. End of discussion.


----------



## Kathutet (Aug 30, 2009)

Jello Biafra said:


> The sig ban came because a mod spoiler tagged his sig, and he unspoilered it. That's his offense. The nature of the image is not what is one trial here.


How many times did he do that?


----------



## Freija (Aug 30, 2009)

Jello Biafra said:


> Do you seriously think any of the members take something like that seriously? Those are jokes, sometimes in bad taste, but still things that are done not for any gain. And when a staff member does actually break a rule, it is dealt with harshly.
> 
> The fact that you don't see it happening means nothing.
> 
> Like I said before, he wasn't banned for the sig, he was banned for unspoilering it. If he had such a problem with it, he could have taken it up in Conference room. Instead, he broke the rules so he faces the consequences. End of discussion.



DUN DUN DUN, I was recently banned for making a thread saying "I'll rep the first 8 posters" which was somehow repwhoring, and you can't make threads joking about repwhoring in that manner anywhere on the forum, but if you're a staff member you can throw out an announcement like that and it's a bad joke.


And the only and I do mean ONLY time a staff member gets his toes burned is when he leaks HR shit... so don't try to tell me otherwise.


Yes because taking something up in the conference is so productive *views his conference threads*


Yeah bullshit.

I also like you ending the discussion with a lame excuse... which I said it would be a few pages earlier.


----------



## Freija (Aug 30, 2009)

Kenneth said:


> How many times did he do that?



ONCE!                    ! and it was cause we all started wearing it... also notice of our beloved staff member here didn't comment on why we got signature banned when wearing the set when we didn't even get it tagged, they just sigbanned us.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Aug 30, 2009)

Freija said:


> YES IT IS BECAUSE THE TAGGING ITSELF WAS DUMB AS FUCK!
> 
> And then we got sigbanned for sporting the same sig, are you denying that too?



So you think the proper response to being unjustly accused of breaking a rule is to break an even more serious rule?

Quite frankly, you and everyone else who sported the sig knew what you were getting into with your little act of civil disobedience. Now pay the consequences. You knew what the stance was on this issue, and you continued anyway. Take your licks and move on.



Freija said:


> DUN DUN DUN, I was recently banned for making a thread saying "I'll rep the first 8 posters" which was somehow repwhoring, and you can't make threads joking about repwhoring in that manner anywhere on the forum, but if you're a staff member you can throw out an announcement like that and it's a bad joke.



Yeah, and do you know what happens if we don't enforce the rules on repwhoring on members? We get a lot of pissed off, angry users who care about rep for some reason.

I can't say I speak for the whole staff, but at least the Cafe mods regard the rep system as BS. But it's there and people expect it to be fair, so we must enforce the rules.



Freija said:


> And the only and I do mean ONLY time a staff member gets his toes burned is when he leaks HR shit... so don't try to tell me otherwise.



Yeah, I will tell you otherwise, because you are wrong. Just recently, a member of the staff was caught altering posts to get a member unjustly banned. He has since been demodded. 



Freija said:


> Yes because taking something up in the conference is so productive *views his conference threads*



If you were being as belligerent then as you are now I can see why you were ignored.


----------



## Kathutet (Aug 30, 2009)

Well judging from all of that and the fact that he only did it once, he should have been sigbanned for a week like the others tbh.


----------



## Zaru (Aug 30, 2009)

Bringing up pek as an example doesn't work, peter. He's an admin, he could set his rep to 290104409 for all we care.



Zaru said:


> Well there's still the question as to why that sig was deemed against the rules in the first place(I'm not saying it's fine that he untagged it again), as no private body parts were revealed, there was no cameltoe, there was no sign of anything remotely resembling a nipple, and she was more clothed than a lot of sigs that run around on this forum freely.


Question still stands guys

Ignoring it doesn't help you



Jello Biafra said:


> to get a member unjustly banned


The same member has been section banned from the blender(effectively banning him entirely as he has not posted since) at a whim, unless I'm missing something here.


----------



## Freija (Aug 30, 2009)

Jello Biafra said:


> So you think the proper response to being unjustly accused of breaking a rule is to break an even more serious rule?
> 
> Quite frankly, you and everyone else who sported the sig knew what you were getting into with your little act of civil disobedience. Now pay the consequences. *You knew what the stance was on this issue, and you continued anyway. Take your licks and move on.*


Now I'm not going to name any names but a certain staff member was talking to me on MSN saying how fucking ridiculous it was. And I bet more of you agree with it, so saying the stance was what Hiroshi decided is not really fair... in that situation it was word vs word.



> Yeah, and do you know what happens if we don't enforce the rules on repwhoring on members? We get a lot of pissed off, angry users who care about rep for some reason.


And yet you don't enforce it around yourself... so when are you going to adress the issue that staff break the rules constantly... for lulz and it gets joked away, personally I found peK's repwhoring hilarious but it does present the perfect example of staff doing wtf they want.


> I can't say I speak for the whole staff, but at least the Cafe mods regard the rep system as BS. But it's there and people expect it to be fair, so we must enforce the rules.


So?

Still a rule you don't enforce around yourselves, along with not censuring your own signatures.


> Yeah, I will tell you otherwise, because you are wrong. Just recently, a member of the staff was caught altering posts to get a member unjustly banned. He has since been demodded.


Hmm, that might have been because Zaru blatantly went "HAHAHA BINARY IS CAUGHT" to the blender which raised some questions because binary is a little ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".).


> If you were being as belligerent then as you are now I can see why you were ignored.


Or perhaps it's because you guys frankly don't give a shit which I certainly noticed surfing the modlounge that one time...


----------



## Freija (Aug 30, 2009)

Zaru said:


> Bringing up pek as an example doesn't work, peter. He's an admin, he could set his rep to 290104409 for all we care.
> 
> 
> Question still stands guys
> ...



Yes it does, you're a lowly member now Zaru...


And why I brought up peK was because she tried to tell me that staff enforced rules upon themselves


----------



## Sasuke_Bateman (Aug 30, 2009)

I want a bigger avy to be honest.


----------



## Susano-o (Aug 30, 2009)

2 things

1) lol cirus 

2) address Zaru's post  

(or is it already being addressed behind the scenes? if so, I wanna know the outcome/conclusion plz, because I don't see how the sig in question warrants a ban or even spoiler tagging, but that might be just me so be so kind to point out what was offensive about the sig and how that/what parts of it would be against the rules)


----------



## Freija (Aug 30, 2009)

The staff has left the building Susano-O, they can't be arsed with lowly members.


----------



## Highgoober (Aug 30, 2009)

Zaru said:


> Question still stands guys
> 
> Ignoring it doesn't help you



I'd guess it's just personal opinion of whoever done it.

I doubt the staff has some black and white rules about what is acceptable(You should know since you were staff at one point), so when someone enforces a rule like that I guess it just comes down to what their opinion of acceptable is. Sure it's not ideal and obviously some people will have very different opinions(personally I don't think the image was that bad and actually saved it).

If a member of staff feels that it should be tagged and then tags the image, the person wearing it should have just asked the staff or the mod personally why it was tagged, instead of untagging it and getting in trouble/causing drama. 

This could all have been avoided with a simple thread or pm.


----------



## Susano-o (Aug 30, 2009)

I'm not a lowly member so I'm sure they are discussing it as if their lives depended on it.


----------



## Zaru (Aug 30, 2009)

Roka said:


> I'd guess it's just personal opinion of whoever done it.



No, since that's technically not possible unless someone abused his powers.

There's a thread in the mod section where the censorship of sets is discussed beforehand. Someone brings it up, opinions are stated, and then actions are taken. Which is how it should be.

The voice of one mod alone can't, under normal circumstances, be enough to tag someone's sig unless it's clearly too offensive, which isn't the case here.

So several mods must have agreed to tag it... now the question is why.


----------



## Highgoober (Aug 30, 2009)

Zaru said:


> No, since that's technically not possible unless someone abused his powers.
> 
> There's a thread in the mod section where the censorship of sets is discussed beforehand. Someone brings it up, opinions are stated, and then actions are taken. Which is how it should be.
> 
> ...



Fair enough, I had no idea that's how it was done.


----------



## Blue (Aug 30, 2009)

Zaru said:


> There's a thread in the mod section where the censorship of sets is discussed beforehand. Someone brings it up, opinions are stated, and then actions are taken. Which is how it should be.


Recently it's been

Mod A: I SEE NIPPLE
MOD B: ME TOO
MOD C: I don't. There's nothing there. :I
MOD A: FUCK YES REMOVED THANKS MOD B

-next post-

Mod A: INAPPROPRIATE
MOD B: DEFINATELY
MOD C: What the fuck are you guys talking about
MOD A: FUCK YES REMOVED THANKS MOD B

It's why I'm using the sig I'm using. And sure enough, it was brought up in the censorship thread for having nipples I PERSONALLY REMOVED. And they fucking know it's  removed, and I still have Vervex here making gifs trying to prove that Rukia has a nipple like 6 miles from where it should be despite the fact she has some basic knowledge of anatomy and should know better.

To be clear, untagging the sig was absolutely a banworthy offense. But yes it shouldn't have been tagged in the first place. And it wasn't solely the fault of the mod who tagged it, this is the sort of example that's been given recently.


----------



## Freija (Aug 30, 2009)

Are you Mod C Blue... are you


----------



## abcd (Aug 30, 2009)

Blue said:


> Recently it's been
> 
> Mod A: I SEE NIPPLE
> MOD B: ME TOO
> ...



 ... I was just thinking about your sig and bringing it up in here  ( compared to the sig that was in the OP of course :3)


----------



## Kathutet (Aug 30, 2009)

Blue said:


> Mod A: I SEE NIPPLE
> MOD B: ME TOO
> MOD C: I don't. There's nothing there. :I
> MOD A: FUCK YES REMOVED THANKS MOD B
> ...


.


----------



## Freija (Aug 30, 2009)

staff is falling apart


----------



## Blue (Aug 30, 2009)

Freija said:


> staff is falling apart



No we're not. Fable was banned basically for not doing what a mod said, and that's 100% fine, you'll get no sympathy from me on that front.


----------



## Freija (Aug 30, 2009)

I was rather referring to your pretty example of ignoring other staff members.


And it was sarcastic.


----------



## stardust (Aug 30, 2009)

I feel like I'm bringing nothing new here, and am throwing out a by now stale opinion, but I personally can't see the problem with it. I wasn't 'offended' by it, and I doubt that a lot of other people were. Going back with what Zaru said a while back, there were no nipples shown, no vagina, nothing of the sort. You could see part of the line on her ass, sure, but that was only _part_ of the line, which is fairly common, isn't it? Other people have paraded sigs arounds which have had bare asses on show. And yeah, other people _have_ had worse sets than that, and that set is relatively tame in comparison. I'm not talking about Kira, I personally don't have a problem with his sets. Recently I saw a various member's sig, who was parading around a gif or sorts. The images in the sig itself were photoshopped images of characters in the buff, with strategically rather crude placed censors. To Love Ru, and Queen's Blade were part of the anime in said set. I personally found that more offensive than Fable's set. At least Fable's was somewhat tasteful.


----------



## Slips (Aug 30, 2009)

I'd love it if just once a mod admitted to fucking up. Just once (Zaru not counting)

Blue do you actually give any of the peasants under you a kick up the rear because theres a fucking few who need it. Power hungry little shits that think they can do no wrong

Things like this really piss me off and all it does is encourage me to act like a cunt and start mashing the report button on anything I find slightly offensive.

/Disables ad-block

This is going to be a looooong night


----------



## Hentai (Aug 30, 2009)

Freija said:


> Not just about you anymore as this whole situation is ridiculous as shit.


Oh I understand and i agree with you in every possible way,...but you know that arguing with the staff is the same as talking to a wall, thats why I rather avoid it. 
I admire your ways very much though, makes me horny.


----------



## kidloco (Aug 30, 2009)

sorry some mods excuse is just bad and wihtout fundament for the ban, mostly first for the tag seeying is purerly legal comparation of others set we had see around NF

so fuck up please, blue is right, about mod c he is the only one right the otehr just failers

need to go but i will back


----------



## Freija (Aug 30, 2009)

Fable said:


> Oh I understand and i agree with you in every possible way,...but you know that arguing with the staff is the same as talking to a wall, thats why I rather avoid it.
> I admire your ways very much though, makes me horny.



Interestingly enough I don't lay down because them fuckers are like a brick wall.


----------



## Blue (Aug 30, 2009)

Slips said:


> I'd love it if just once a mod admitted to fucking up. Just once (Zaru not counting)
> 
> Blue do you actually give any of the peasants under you a kick up the rear because theres a fucking few who need it. Power hungry little shits that think they can do no wrong



I'm not trying to look better than them here, because I'm not. They're in the fucking trenches of Naruto avenue among other wretched places, stacking up dozens of actions a day keeping the retards of the forum in check, while I'm sitting up on my pedestal, judging them from on high. It's kind of unfair honestly. I put in my time as a mod - a month as a supermod and more than a year as an ultramod, an admin who actually mods, and then another year as an active admin; I have the 18,000 mod actions to prove it. 

That was a long time ago, however. I get in a lot of arguments with them, and they use the "oldfag, gtfo" card on me a lot. It's frustrating, especially when not only did 3 other generations of mods make the same mistake before them, I made the mistake too.

But I've been here in Q&A, with a thread from some angry member calling me out. That's why I'm not going let anyone pretend I'm some kind of traitor king. Fable was lucky to be unbanned; I don't know who did it, but it wasn't me.

But at the same time I'm not going to let lies like "the sig removal was unanimous" get kicked around.


----------



## Slips (Aug 30, 2009)

Fable said:


> Oh I understand and i agree with you in every possible way,...but you know that arguing with the staff is the same as talking to a wall, thats why I rather avoid it.
> I admire your ways very much though, makes me horny.



Depends on who you argue with. I've found that

Mods will stick there fingers in there ears and not listen.

Same with Smods to an extent

Admins I've found happen to hold a conversation with you. peK , Blue , Goobs , Ryan , Vegeta will at least listen to your side of the story

I'm with Peter on this one though even though the thread is a waste of time I'd rather shout it in there face every time they fuck up I'll always speak my mind and be critical if the need arises. If they cant handle criticism then they shouldn't be a fucking mod


----------



## Blue (Aug 30, 2009)

kidloco said:


> so fuck up please, blue is right, about mod c he is the only one right the otehr just failers
> 
> need to go but i will back


No, seriously, even if the mods are wrong once in a while, them > you. At least they're helping keep the forum running, you're just being an Q&A hero.


----------



## Freija (Aug 30, 2009)

Blue said:


> I'm not trying to look better than them here, because I'm not. They're in the fucking trenches of Naruto avenue among other wretched places, stacking up dozens of actions a day keeping the retards of the forum in check, while I'm sitting up on my pedestal, judging them from on high. It's kind of unfair honestly. I put in my time as a mod - a month as a supermod and more than a year as an ultramod, an admin who actually mods, and then another year as an active admin; I have the 18,000 mod actions to prove it.
> 
> That was a long time ago, however. *I get in a lot of arguments with them, and they use the "oldfag, gtfo" card on me a lot. It's frustrating, especially when not only did 3 other generations of mods make the same mistake before them, I made the mistake too.*
> 
> ...


And people ask why I call certain staff members morons...

And while I agree they do keep the forum in check, once in awhile admitting you did something wrong and correcting it might be the key not to get these situations every time they fuck up


----------



## Blue (Aug 30, 2009)

That's some professional-level selective reading there petar


----------



## Hexa (Aug 30, 2009)

If a mod tags your signature and you feel you've been wronged, make a SCR thread saying MY FREEDOM HAS BEEN INFRINGED or something else with all caps as all caps sends a message that you're an alpha dog.  When talking to mods, you need to project confidence.  Consider using powerful colors like blood red in your post.

Don't untag your signature.


----------



## Freija (Aug 30, 2009)

Blue said:


> That's some professional-level selective reading there petar


I have no idea what you are talking about, Dan 


Hexa said:


> If a mod tags your signature and you feel you've been wronged, make a SCR thread saying MY FREEDOM HAS BEEN INFRINGED or something else with all caps as all caps sends a message that you're an alpha dog.  When talking to mods, you need to project confidence.  Consider using powerful colors like blood red in your post.
> 
> Don't untag your signature.



Which would most likely lead to the situation Blue so prettily wrote earlier.


----------



## Kathutet (Aug 30, 2009)

*FABLE'S FREEDOM HAS BEEN INFRINGED*

*I believe that Fable did not deserve to have it spoiler tagged in the first place, and by untagging it he got banned. So if it was never tagged before, he wouldn't have been banned and all of this bullshit would have never happened. Even an admin agreed to the fact that it shouldn't have been spoiler tagged in the first place. :agressivesmiley*


----------



## Hexa (Aug 30, 2009)

Freija, you don't know if you don't try, right?




Kenneth said:


> *I believe that Fable did not deserve to have it spoiler tagged in the first place, and by untagging it he got banned. So if it was never tagged before, he wouldn't have been banned and all of this bullshit would have never happened. Even an admin agreed to the fact that it shouldn't have been spoiler tagged in the first place. :agressivesmiley*


That's more of a maroon.  GTFO.

I have another possible way that Fable could have avoided being banned: he could have not untagged his signature in response to his signature being tagged.  He could have acted maturely.


----------



## Freija (Aug 30, 2009)

Yeah, and the staff member could've not been an ass and tagged it ?


----------



## Kathutet (Aug 30, 2009)

*THE STAFF IS RUDE TOWARDS ME*



Hexa said:


> That's more of a maroon.  GTFO.


*I don't think telling me to GTFO will help your arguments in any way. At least act like a staff member and not like a cheap Blenderite rip-off.*


----------



## Hexa (Aug 30, 2009)

Freija said:


> Yeah, and the staff member could've not been an ass and tagged it ?


That's just shrugging off responsibility from Fable, though.  I'm sure there are a lot of reasons why Fable did what he did.


Kenneth, that's just red.


----------



## Kathutet (Aug 30, 2009)

*I FIND THE LACK OF COLORS ON THIS FORUM APPALLING*

This forum doesn't have blood red. I'm disappointed. :<


----------



## King (Aug 30, 2009)

So, who was the staff member who "tagged" or whatever the fuck it is?


----------



## Freija (Aug 30, 2009)

Hexa said:


> That's just shrugging off responsibility from Fable, though.  I'm sure there are a lot of reasons why Fable did what he did.
> 
> 
> Kenneth, that's just red.



Just like you're shrugging off staff responsibility ?



King said:


> So, who was the staff member who "tagged" or whatever the fuck it is?



Hiroshi.


----------



## Hentai (Aug 30, 2009)

Hexa said:


> I have another possible way that Fable could have avoided being banned: he could have not untagged his signature in response to his signature being tagged.  He could have acted maturely.


So you say that dont giving a shit about what Hiroshi says was a immature act?
I am sorry but i have to disagree. 
It was an act of revolt against a stupid decision.
I had this sig for several days, Mods, Admins and SMods saw it. I had a much more revealing one a few weeks before, and to make sure it was legal i even asked Chamcham who said from his side it was okay.
Now all of the Sudden a prude SMod jumps out of her section and complains (probably just because the sig was showing a female in a sexy position) and taggs it because she wants to protect "younger Members".

Thats some very liquid bullshit right there.


----------



## Freija (Aug 30, 2009)

Ohhhh, so you had staff permission as well... the plot thickens.


----------



## Hentai (Aug 30, 2009)

Freija said:


> Ohhhh, so you had staff permission as well... the plot thickens.


Not about that one Sig, but for another, more "nude" sig.
Chamcham said it was okay from his side and that it is not bannable in any way. I used to have that sig for like a month, and no one tagged it, even though i posted like 500 posts all over NF at that time.


----------



## Freija (Aug 30, 2009)

Fable said:


> Not about that one Sig, but for another, more "nude" sig.
> Chamcham said it was okay from his side and that it is not bannable in any way. I used to have that sig for like a month, and no one tagged it, even though i posted like 500 posts all over NF at that time.



Do you mind showing me said signature ?


----------



## Setoshi (Aug 30, 2009)

You guys provoked the mods and then got slapped in the face in return. 

a/s/l thread, plz.


----------



## Hentai (Aug 30, 2009)

Freija said:


> Do you mind showing me said signature ?


I would but right now i cant, i have it saved on my home PC, but i am on my laptop in Sweden now.
I will look for a way to find it...
Maybe if i describe it you might remember:
It was a pink haired girl with a bigass gun. 
Her butt was naked.


----------



## Freija (Aug 30, 2009)

No fucking idea


----------



## Hentai (Aug 30, 2009)

Freija said:


> No fucking idea


But it was definitely more explicit.


----------



## Hexa (Aug 30, 2009)

Frieja said:
			
		

> Just like you're shrugging off staff responsibility ?


I know a way we can end this cycle of shrugging off responsibility.



Fable said:


> Now all of the Sudden a prude SMod jumps out of her section and complains (probably just because the sig was showing a female in a sexy position) and taggs it because she wants to protect "younger Members".
> 
> Thats some very liquid bullshit right there.


If it's any help, I'll leak that your information about how your sig tagging went down is totally wrong.

Try making an SCR thread next time, Fable.


----------



## Hentai (Aug 30, 2009)

Hexa said:


> I know a way we can end this cycle of shrugging off responsibility.
> 
> If it's any help, I'll leak that your information about how your sig tagging went down is totally wrong.
> 
> Try making an SCR thread next time, Fable.


I dont really get what you try to tell me but it's not like i care either.


----------



## abcd (Aug 30, 2009)

setoshi said:


> You guys provoked the mods and then got slapped in the face in return.



No it looked more like Flame-baiting from the mod and getting such reactions ..... (its just an analogy )


----------



## Eki (Aug 30, 2009)

somewhat of the reason why we need new/better/responsible/mature staff


----------



## Vanity (Aug 30, 2009)

Fable said:


> Now all of the Sudden a prude *SMod jumps out of her section* and complains (probably just because the sig was showing a female in a sexy position) and taggs it because she wants to protect "younger Members".
> 
> Thats some very liquid bullshit right there.



How does an s-mod jump out of her section? s-mods have powers on the whole board for a reason so they don't really have a specific section do they?

Anyway, one time I had a sig that got in trouble even though I had directly asked a mod first if the sig was okay....and the mod said it was....so I used it. I still got in trouble from another mod though, which was pretty lame, because a mod had told me it was fine. I just had to accept it though.

Of course, if you plan to use a sig, asking a mod first if it's okay is still definitly a good idea. I suggest asking an admin especially before using it. It's harder to get in trouble that way. Just a suggestion for next time.


----------



## Zaru (Aug 30, 2009)

Asking a mod if something is okay might not be a guarantee that it's actually okay to use.

Because one mod doesn't represent the entire staff (especially with with some of them reacting way more fierce to such sigs than others)

I remember from when members asked me if a sig was okay to use, I couldn't give a 100% reply and told them to ask an smod to be safe, as my opinion alone didn't guarantee shit.


----------



## Vanity (Aug 30, 2009)

Zaru said:


> Asking a mod if something is okay might not be a guarantee that it's actually okay to use.
> 
> Because one mod doesn't represent the entire staff (especially with with some of them reacting way more fierce to such sigs than others)
> 
> I remember from when members asked me if a sig was okay to use, I couldn't give a 100% reply and told them to ask an smod to be safe, as my opinion alone didn't guarantee shit.



Yeah I know....but it still helps.

I guess if someone really wants to be safe they can PM the sig they want to use to a bunch of staff and ask if it's okay.

Or at least ask the mods that are more strict on certain things in sigs....ask them if it's okay.

In my case it wasn't a case of the sig being too revealing or anything. With me it was a sig that was 5-10 pixels over the limit because I wanted to credit the artist since someone on NF made it for me and link to the Deidara FC in my sig still. I used size 1 font too to keep it as small as possible from what I recall. So it was hardly over the limit and I still asked if it was okay to use it but another mod obviously didn't think so and I got in trouble.

Ever since then I make sure it's not even 1 pixel over. :S


----------



## Hentai (Aug 30, 2009)

Kyasurin Yakuto said:


> Ever since then I make sure it's not even 1 pixel over. :S


You recently had a sig that was over the MB size limit.


Kyasurin Yakuto said:


> How does an s-mod jump out of her section? s-mods have power....


I was talking of her favorite section. Dont take every word as it stands.

Aside of that, i want to show you the exit now. This is a blender based discussion, and your posts are not fitting/wanted here.

Please leave.


----------



## isanon (Aug 30, 2009)

*Spoiler*: _ i'll just leave this here_ 



yeah the staaf are fucking saints

this was when pek changed the repranks 


this is from the entire blender getting banned cause some smod was bored


----------



## Vanity (Aug 30, 2009)

Fable said:


> You recently had a sig that was over the MB size limit.
> 
> I was talking of her favorite section. Dont take every word as it stands.
> 
> ...



How was it over? I always check with conversion to make sure that it isn't.

Anyway I was just trying to help you but okay I'll leave.


----------



## Hentai (Aug 30, 2009)

Kyasurin Yakuto said:


> How was it over? I always check with conversion to make sure that it isn't.
> 
> Anyway I was just trying to help you but okay I'll leave.


It was i checked it, but I didn't say.


@ isanon:

Tack!


----------



## Kathutet (Aug 30, 2009)

isanon said:


> *Spoiler*: _ i'll just leave this here_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Omg hardcore shit 


Kyasurin Yakuto said:


> I suggest asking an admin especially before using it.


No, even Blue gets shat on for that.


Kyasurin Yakuto said:


> I guess if someone really wants to be safe they can PM the sig they want to use to a bunch of staff and ask if it's okay.


Sadly this is impossible, as I and others change sets every week/day and hell, some people even change it once every two hours. =/


----------



## Cirus (Aug 30, 2009)

Maybe the rules need to be updated to include specific examples as to what is an is not acceptable sinse no individual staff member can say what is an is not acceptable.  Which is to also include a specific discription beside examples as to what is and is not acceptable.  

That way avoidance of future problems can be done. Reason being is that it appears to me from what is going on that the rules are ment to be guidelines as for what people can and can not have, but each staff member is inturpreting them differently because their is no set specific standard to go off of.


----------



## Ram (Aug 30, 2009)

I find it appalling that the staff won't let us put borderline pornography in our sets. 
The gall of them!


----------



## kidloco (Aug 30, 2009)

ky just shut up...

what i know boderline have be ok in some members believe me i had drool hard and fap, but sometimes some are just chidlis...


----------



## NudeShroom (Aug 30, 2009)

How about, to make sure this doesn't happen again, there becomes a normalized system for checking on if a sig is okay?

Just make a thread, where if a person actually does have a questionable sig, they can post it there and have a mod approve it by editing the post, and leaving a message saying "approved -blah" so that if another mod thinks it's inappropriate, they can just simply search this said thread to see if it hasn't been approved by another yet.  Members can just delete their original post once they're done using the posted sig.

However, it would have to only have maybe one or two mods to control this thread, to prevent personal bias.

Just an idea to stop the multiple mod opinion problem.

**


----------



## Gooba (Aug 30, 2009)

Nudeshroom said:
			
		

> How about, to make sure this doesn't happen again, there becomes a normalized system for checking on if a sig is okay?
> 
> Just make a thread, where if a person actually does have a questionable sig, they can post it there and have a mod approve it by editing the post, and leaving a message saying "approved -blah" so that if another mod thinks it's inappropriate, they can just simply search this said thread to see if it hasn't been approved by another yet. Members can just delete their original post once they're done using the posted sig.
> 
> ...


That has nothing to do with the Fable banning.  Fable wasn't confused and thought it would be ok to untag since a mod tagged it.  You can't get any more clear a guideline than that.  The ban was because despite knowing exactly what was acceptable Fable untagged it.


----------



## kidloco (Aug 30, 2009)

question, why was tag if was legal in the law of nf?

not tits or private part can see it


----------



## Cirus (Aug 30, 2009)

Gooba said:


> That has nothing to do with the Fable banning. Fable wasn't confused and thought it would be ok to untag since a mod tagged it. You can't get any more clear a guideline than that. The ban was because despite knowing exactly what was acceptable Fable untagged it.


If I may point out here there is such a thing that I believe is called "Progressive Punishment". Where in if the person keeps doing something then the punishment gets worse and worse. Which in this case would eventually end up leading to said ban if the person kept on putting that in the sig without spoiler tags. 

Now wouldn't the progressive way first be after the removal of the spoiler tags: sig ban, longer sig ban, then ban.




kidloco said:


> question, why was tag if was legal in the law of nf?
> 
> not tits or private part can see it


 Go back a few pages and read what I posted.  It is explained all in there.


----------



## Kathutet (Aug 30, 2009)

kidloco said:


> question, why was tag if was legal in the law of nf?
> 
> not tits or private part can see it


How do I tagged softporn images?


----------



## kidloco (Aug 30, 2009)

just doing modification and that, i can be use, i did like 3 times and not get problem (exept some negs  because they are haters ) cirus, no... still is fucking legal


----------



## Cirus (Aug 30, 2009)

kidloco said:


> just doing modification and that, i can be use, i did like 3 times and not get problem (exept some negs because they are haters ) cirus, no... still is fucking legal


 It is legal to have in the sig but it needs to be under spoilers.  Though if the staff is enforcing that rule right now they need to enforce it for everyone across the forums in which they have a standard for judging such things.


----------



## isanon (Aug 30, 2009)

Cirus said:


> It is legal to have in the sig but it needs to be under spoilers.  Though if the staff is enforcing that rule right now they need to enforce it for everyone across the forums in which they have a standard for judging such things.


but lets say i put that pig in my sig under spoiler tags and then i name the spoiler tag "almost naked woman with her ass in the air" then we can be sure that every "mature" member on this forum will just ignore the spoiler tag and you can be damn sure every kid will click it


----------



## kidloco (Aug 30, 2009)

if is like that
why not do the mayory of peple using that type of sign? stop please, when is legal and permit is like that and is ok to use it, only because a bicht dont like that sing not mean to tag it and later ban it, ws for her opinion and not for NF rules (ok i read the rest and traid to said what i said in somehow but still i not have read a rules for that be in spoilet.. is dumb, mostly have be like that for years what i have memory)

 isano


----------



## Freija (Aug 30, 2009)

Cirus said:


> If I may point out here there is such a thing that I believe is called "Progressive Punishment". Where in if the person keeps doing something then the punishment gets worse and worse. Which in this case would eventually end up leading to said ban if the person kept on putting that in the sig without spoiler tags.
> 
> Now wouldn't the progressive way first be after the removal of the spoiler tags: sig ban, longer sig ban, then ban.
> 
> ...



Nothing was explained... you could read all you wrote and just see "Logical fallacy" and that is directly quoting someone way smarter than both of us 


It's pure bullshit covered up with more bullshit.


----------



## kidloco (Aug 30, 2009)

Deputy Myself said:


> This just made me laugh out loud lol
> 
> 
> Except everybody knows this and it was an offense worthy of banning. Yet all he gets is demodded
> ...



whhat he said, iwht one more thing, was so epic and need it was worthy that


----------



## isanon (Aug 30, 2009)

> Yeah, I will tell you otherwise, because you are wrong. Just recently, a member of the staff was caught altering posts to get a member unjustly banned. He has since been demodded.


 well no one likes binary anyway


----------



## Eki (Aug 30, 2009)

amen to that


----------



## Zaru (Aug 30, 2009)

Deputy Myself said:


> Except everybody knows this and it was an offense worthy of banning. Yet all he gets is demodded



Lol what I was banned for 3 weeks


----------



## isanon (Aug 30, 2009)

Zaru said:


> Lol what I was banned for 3 weeks


snd binary was modded


----------



## Cirus (Aug 30, 2009)

isanon said:


> but lets say i put that pig in my sig under spoiler tags and then i name the spoiler tag "almost naked woman with her ass in the air" then we can be sure that every "mature" member on this forum will just ignore the spoiler tag and you can be damn sure every kid will click it


 
Then that will be a headache the staff will have to deal with when that happens.  The staff made the rules and now they need to enforce them properly instead of haphazardly.



Freija said:


> Nothing was explained... you could read all you wrote and just see "Logical fallacy" and that is directly quoting someone way smarter than both of us
> 
> 
> It's pure bullshit covered up with more bullshit.


 Now my question to you is this:  Was a PM sent to Fable explaining the reasons behind such an action?

1.  If it was done then there is no reason to keep complaining about the deal because Fable knew what was going on and had no one else to blame but his or herself.

2.  If it was not done then it could be presumed that Fable thought it was just a mod screwing around and didn't think anything of it.

When an action is done it needs to be explained why.  You don't just let things sit out there with no answers because then people will going doing what they normally do because they think they did nothing wrong.

Also with the new enforcment of such a rule the staff should have put out an annoncement that they were lax on it before and that they were going to step up on enforcing it.  Which would also include an explination of the rule and how it was going to be enforced.

Each side of the argument has its own pros and cons.  The staff are enforcing the rules, but doing equally across the board and giving people a fair shake at accumulating to them.  You Blenderites believe that the actions taken were a little extreme, but are going about getting it fixed in the wrong way.

If both parties try to actually work together to get things figured out then I believe that a resolution can be made to such ends.  Instead of Blenderites screaming bloody murder, and Staff screaming they don't need to explain/don't need to answer/it is their discresion/or not responding to any of the inquiries.

Then once a resolution is done then maybe, just maybe people here will actually learn to work together instead of having it as one side vs. another.  Which never works.  Just as kings of past punished those who didn't respect the laws of the land, so do the people who don't respect the king who makes the laws of the land by ousting him with beheading.


----------



## kidloco (Aug 30, 2009)

> new enforcment of such a rule



what rules, the one i know said pic can be everything unless let see nipple or vagina, and in her sign, that was not present, so sign can be echii and ect unless one can see nipple or vagina and that is ban or tag, but we talking about fable sign and the mayority that was just shit because hiroshi t was againg biasse hunting a blenderite and tag first and later ban it...

we know we have see more boderline and nothing, so shut up already, you argument and rules can be in here because nothign wrong was


----------



## Eki (Aug 30, 2009)

your last sentence made no sense loco and many spelling errors


----------



## Gooba (Aug 30, 2009)

The rule is:

Nipple or vagina = remove
Too suggestive = tag

The last one is subjective, which is why we either tag it or send a PM with no banning or infractions or anything punitive.  The only time repercussions happen is if you blow off the PM or undo the tag.


----------



## Cirus (Aug 30, 2009)

kidloco said:


> what rules, the one i know said pic can be everything unless let see nipple or vagina, and in her sign, that was not present, so sign can be echii and ect unless one can see nipple or vagina and that is ban or tag, but we talking about fable sign and the mayority that was just shit because hiroshi t was againg biasse hunting a blenderite and tag first and later ban it...
> 
> we know we have see more boderline and nothing, so shut up already, you argument and rules can be in here because nothign wrong was


 

Byakuya

Go to the bottom of the page.  I it is under sigs and avis.  It is clearly there.



Gooba said:


> The rule is:
> 
> Nipple or vagina = remove
> Too suggestive = tag
> ...


 Question:  Was a PM sent to the person saying why such an action was done?

If there was then no argument exists on this subject.  If the was no PM sent then it is arguable as to the reason why the spoiler was done sinse the person may or maynot have known they were breaking the rules in regaurds to the actions done.


----------



## King (Aug 30, 2009)

Cirus.

Are you trying to become a mod?
Only a mod would have the time and motivation to type all of that up. Or someone trying to become one.


----------



## Mider T (Aug 30, 2009)

Is this really happening?  Really?  Honestly, Freija wasn't serious about this thread (he was high) and knows the reason, so why do we keep going on.  The rules have been linked and stated many times so what is this?

Cirusly?


----------



## Gooba (Aug 31, 2009)

> I just read this whole thread and let me see if I got this right. Fable wore a set that showed no nipples, vagoo, anus, etc etc. And was tag'd?


Again, you don't understand the policy.  Those things mean it gets removed and you possibly get sig banned or real banned.  Suggestive gets tags, not nudity.


----------



## Garfield (Aug 31, 2009)

Can I have that large avy along with Bateman too?


----------



## Grimmjow (Aug 31, 2009)

Wow Cirus just wow.


----------



## isanon (Aug 31, 2009)

Gooba said:


> Again, you don't understand the policy.  Those things mean it gets removed and you possibly get sig banned or real banned.  Suggestive gets tags, not nudity.


ffs sugestive ?? every god damned sig in this forum is sugestive. im sure we can even find someone that thinks your sig sugests that you are a drug and sexaddict  (not that im saying that you are im just saying we can find someone that thinks so) 

and if sugestivness is to be cencured then why just stop at pics why not cencure text to like little good facists. i can think of several "locations" ,and usertitles that are sugestive, mine for one (its ne name of a hentai manga with loli sex maids) "in emsys pants" is another one.

and while we are at it if one pic of a woman with her ass in the air is too sugestive then wth is a gif of sasuke fucking naruto in the ass ?? such a gif was worn by a smod for a hel of a long time, and i have had an ava with 2 potatoes humping fro a very long time. isnt THAT to sugestive ??


----------



## Mr Clean (Aug 31, 2009)

I support Cirus in his campaign.


----------



## Hentai (Aug 31, 2009)

You know what pisses me off, not the fact that i was banned since I am unbanned anyway, but the fact that i was banned and sigbanned, and they didnt tell me anything about it....like, i got no PM saying how long the sigban will last and the exact reason and so on.
Is it so hard fro the staff to just send a stupid PM that explains all? 
Now i have to make a thread in the Staff Conference and HOPE that some staff member replies in a few hours if I am lucky.


----------



## Mr Clean (Aug 31, 2009)

Fable said:


> Is it so hard fro the staff to just send a stupid PM that explains all?
> Now i have to make a thread in the Staff Conference and HOPE that some staff member replies in a few hours if I am lucky.



There is a reason everybody hates them.


----------



## The Mexican (Aug 31, 2009)

Actually you make a good point, I have no idea how long I'm sig banned/ rep sealed for. :/


----------



## tgre (Aug 31, 2009)

I think Creator needs to see this thread regarding his Tsunade sigs.

Or half the anime female-devoted FCs for that matter.

I sometimes feel that some of the lesser mods simply go too far in their moderation and are too afraid to admit their mistake so they turn it into a full blown drama.

ie:

Mod A: Haha, stupid member... you can't have such a revealing sig!
Member A: No, I'm not showing nipples or vagoo!"
Mod A: I deem it too revealing. Shutup I am Internet.
Member A: FFFFFFF- Authority abuse! I will not stand for this!
Mod A: *Ban* infidel.
Mod A: I feel good.
Member B: Whoa you fucked up good... your own team has sigs worse than that.
Mod A: ... and?
Member B: I don't see you reporting him.
Mod A: ... admins I need some help here.
Mod B: Gooba to the rescue
Mod A: phew
Mod B: Mod A 
Mod A: Mod B 
Member B: Fuck this...

It's okay to admit to mistakes... that's why there's a question and complaints section Hiroshi.

I for one don't believe Fable should have been banned, but I can see why Hiroshi should have thought so. 

I mean, the limit of sigs is that no nipples and vaginas... everything is else is subjective to the mod in question.

Hell, Iria, Robotkiller and other Blender moderators don't give a crap even if they see extreme hardcore rape with the penises covered with "" as long as it's not breaching the nipple/vagina contract.

But I find it hard to believe that the all the active moderators in question reached a decision to ban Fable when the decision itself wasn't unanimous.

At the most... I would have gone with a sig ban since that's the only rule he violated, a full ban just shows that Hiroshi's ego was hurt.


----------



## martryn (Aug 31, 2009)

I'll call the moderators out!  Come on, bitches!  Let's dance!  Meet me in the "Mods Need to Die FC".  I'll stab you in your throat.


----------



## Gooba (Aug 31, 2009)

Fable said:


> You know what pisses me off, not the fact that i was banned since I am unbanned anyway, but the fact that i was banned and sigbanned, and they didnt tell me anything about it....like, i got no PM saying how long the sigban will last and the exact reason and so on.
> Is it so hard fro the staff to just send a stupid PM that explains all?
> Now i have to make a thread in the Staff Conference and HOPE that some staff member replies in a few hours if I am lucky.


I agree that they should always PM, but is it really that huge a deal that they didn't?  Just PM a few mods and you'll get your question answered quickly.  This really seems like just an excuse to rage at us because you want to rage.


----------



## Reznor (Aug 31, 2009)

> Now I'm not going to name any names but a certain staff member was talking to me on MSN saying how fucking ridiculous it was. And I bet more of you agree with it, so saying the stance was what Hiroshi decided is not really fair... in that situation it was word vs word.


 Imagine a police officer pulls you over for speeding. You disagree that you were speeding, and for arguments sake, you weren't speeding.

If you decide to speed off, the officer will chase you and you'll get arrested.
Even if you can establish that you weren't speeding, you don't get off the hook for speeding off.



> You know what pisses me off, not the fact that i was banned since I am unbanned anyway, but the fact that i was banned and sigbanned, and they didnt tell me anything about it....like, i got no PM saying how long the sigban will last and the exact reason and so on.
> Is it so hard fro the staff to just send a stupid PM that explains all?
> Now i have to make a thread in the Staff Conference and HOPE that some staff member replies in a few hours if I am lucky.





> Actually you make a good point, I have no idea how long I'm sig banned/ rep sealed for. :/


 That's fair. I'll see what we can do about that.


----------



## Kathutet (Aug 31, 2009)

Hey uh, Gooba, Rez, do you think this sig would be allowed? :3


----------



## abcd (Aug 31, 2009)

Kenneth said:


> Hey uh, Gooba, Rez, do you think this sig would be allowed? :3



These sigs shud be tagged not the pervy ones


----------



## scerpers (Aug 31, 2009)

I guess what 4chan says it actually true.

Mods = ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)


----------



## Distracted (Aug 31, 2009)

1.  People are over blowing the staff unity thing.  We try to respect a mods choice and decision because we don't want to make discussion an unpleasant thing.

This does not mean we fall in line when someone makes an out right bad or dumb decision.  It means that if someone makes a questionable call (For example: say I banned someone where another mod would have PMed them and warned) then we respect them making a judgment call.

However, we do critique each other on a regular basis - - despite what you may or may not have heard.  I've even had mods outright change what I have done without even telling me until after the fact.

2.  The guy untagged a tagged sig and was banned.  That's not up for discussion, that deserves being banned.

3.  The sig being questionable or not is the issue at hand.  That can be discussed and dealt with.  That other people have gotten away with worse isn't important.  It sucks, but there are so few of us staff with so many of you members.  We can't catch every sig every time.

On top of this different staff members find different things to be offensive.  It makes it difficult to moderate uniformly.

4.  How much of this is really just the blender getting it's "mod hating" rocks off?


----------



## Freija (Aug 31, 2009)

ITT: Blenderite Advertisements





I demand a de-adminization of Vegeta and a sig ban for wearing the same set as we did.




/highly sarcastic post


----------



## Felix (Aug 31, 2009)

Freija said:


> Chapter 10's out @ MH.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is preposterous!!!


----------



## Gooba (Aug 31, 2009)

> Imagine a police officer pulls you over for speeding. You disagree that you were speeding, and for arguments sake, you weren't speeding.
> 
> If you decide to speed off, the officer will chase you and you'll get arrested.
> Even if you can establish that you weren't speeding, you don't get off the hook for speeding off.


This is pretty much the crux of the argument.  You guys are focusing on the image itself too much.  We could have easily had a discussion about that image and I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up allowing it, but the problem was her approach and yours which lead to the sig bans.



> 4. How much of this is really just the blender getting it's "mod hating" rocks off?


^


----------



## Freija (Aug 31, 2009)

*refers Gooba to Vegeta's userpage*


----------



## Slips (Aug 31, 2009)

I very much doubt its a case of Blender hating mods when we seem to have mod support :S

Honestly is it so hard just to come out and go yeah I fucked up sorry ??

You would get triple the amount of respect but as per usual mods seem to think they can do no wrong and as long as that attitude remains the rest of the forum will continue to think your all a bunch of egotistical twats


----------



## isanon (Aug 31, 2009)

> 4. How much of this is really just the blender getting it's "mod hating" rocks off?


mod hating ?? we love our mods (and ex mods), what we hate are narrow minded rule jockeys


----------



## Freija (Aug 31, 2009)

Mider T said:


> Is this really happening?  Really?  Honestly, Freija wasn't serious about this thread (he was high) and knows the reason, so why do we keep going on.  The rules have been linked and stated many times so what is this?
> 
> Cirusly?



I have never tried recreational drugs in my life


----------



## Kathutet (Aug 31, 2009)

Well gentlemen, then I find this signature offensive as well. It's pretty much the same as Fable's but with not only loli but also furry in it.

Charizard

Make it happen.


----------



## Cirus (Aug 31, 2009)

Reznor said:


> Imagine a police officer pulls you over for speeding. You disagree that you were speeding, and for arguments sake, you weren't speeding.
> 
> If you decide to speed off, the officer will chase you and you'll get arrested.
> Even if you can establish that you weren't speeding, you don't get off the hook for speeding off.


Yeah I agree with that, but this is more along the lines of a case where the person was caught speeding.  Given a ticket, and then caught speeding again.  





Distracted said:


> 1. People are over blowing the staff unity thing. We try to respect a mods choice and decision because we don't want to make discussion an unpleasant thing.


That does mean you are falling in line because you are scared of making a discussion an unpleasant thing. Discussions are supposed to have people that dissagree, otherwise there is nothing to discuss at all.



> This does not mean we fall in line when someone makes an out right bad or dumb decision. It means that if someone makes a questionable call (For example: say I banned someone where another mod would have PMed them and warned) then we respect them making a judgment call.


So you dispite a disagreement with another person you don't do anything about it to raise any concerns with the problem? Once again this shows just falling in line because you don't want to make a discussion an unpleasant thing.



> However, we do critique each other on a regular basis - - despite what you may or may not have heard. I've even had mods outright change what I have done without even telling me until after the fact.


What are the actual occurances on such things happening? How many times per month/year/week/day?



> 2. The guy untagged a tagged sig and was banned. That's not up for discussion, that deserves being banned.


How does that diserve being banned from the forum when the next logical step in the process would be a sigban? Thats like a cop pulling you over for speeding 8mph over the speed limit and then arresting you and taking you to jail. 



> 3. The sig being questionable or not is the issue at hand. That can be discussed and dealt with. That other people have gotten away with worse isn't important. It sucks, but there are so few of us staff with so many of you members. We can't catch every sig every time.


That sig is one of the issues that is at hand along with several other things that need to be addressed. 



> On top of this different staff members find different things to be offensive. It makes it difficult to moderate uniformly.


Then why not have a set of standards and guidlines on how to judge things? That way it doesn't have to be difficult to moderate uniformly.



> 4. How much of this is really just the blender getting it's "mod hating" rocks off?


Not even I can know the answer to that question.


----------



## Freija (Aug 31, 2009)

avraell said:


> That's such bullshit. It should have ended with the mod admitting he/she is wrong, not the person getting banned then.
> 
> Fucc the poh-lice!
> 
> (btw, if original sig image was "ok" and Hiroshi or whoever over reacted, then I am completely serious)



It was "ok" it was even ok'd by staff members 


Also Cirus gtfo already, no one is reading your useless posts. go wannabe mod somewhere else.


----------



## 海外ニキ (Aug 31, 2009)

Fable said:


> like, i got no PM saying how long the sigban will last and the exact reason and so on.



Yeah wth, Jetstorm told me in plain words that I got a month long repban and a 1/3 rep slash for repwhoring that one time.


----------



## Felix (Aug 31, 2009)

Just dropping my two cents:

This rage started not due the banning, which I think most users understand why it happened, because Fable went against a warning, but due the fact that the warning was made in the first place. That signature should have not been tagged. Period. Hiroshi probably overreacted when she saw it, she probably wouldn't do it again now, but what's pissing off everyone is the fact that most of the Administrative team is not admitting the "mess up". It's not the banning of Fable that is dumb, it's the whole trial that lead up to it.

What I have said right now brings nothing new to the table. This is going to keep going on in circles and we will reach no conclusion. We have some members of the Mod team agreeing with us, others rejecting the idea that they messed up (I repeat, the banning was fair though), we will reach no consensus. I would love to see Hiroshis reply to all this though before this is locked.


----------



## scerpers (Aug 31, 2009)

This thread makes me feel a strange feeling in the pit of my stomach.

A foreign feeling. One I'm not accustomed to.

~Zaxxon~'s sig is very suggestive to me, please mods, save my young virgin mind.


----------



## 海外ニキ (Aug 31, 2009)

Scorpion said:


> ~Zaxxon~'s sig is very suggestive to me, please mods, save my young virgin mind.



I was waiting for that. 



And I've worn this on and off for months.


----------



## scerpers (Aug 31, 2009)

~Zaxxon~ said:


> I was waiting for that.
> 
> 
> 
> And I've worn this on and off for months.



COME ON! SHE'S LIFTING UP HER SHIRT! HOW MUCH MORE SUGGESTIVE CAN YOU GET!

OFFENDED!


----------



## Mike Hunt (Aug 31, 2009)

This is why women should not have any power or any say on a forum where sex fiends animefags roam.


----------



## isanon (Aug 31, 2009)

@scorpion i dunno *looks at own sig*


----------



## Lezard Valeth (Aug 31, 2009)

That's why I disabled sig viewing


----------



## isanon (Aug 31, 2009)

^^ and this is relative to the matter why ??


----------



## Blue (Aug 31, 2009)

Piss Ant said:


> This is why women should not have any power or any say on a forum where sex fiends animefags roam.



You're so fucking wrong you have no clue. Almost every single legendary avenue mod to date has been female.


----------



## Lezard Valeth (Aug 31, 2009)

the only legendary avenue mod IMO was Genesis, professional troll


----------



## kidloco (Aug 31, 2009)

1. about ticket and police

police can give you ticke, yes, but you have 3 option about that

not paid (problem) paid it or go to court

if go to courth you can have the option to talk you case to the judge, so you cant said you cant defend the injust (if have) yes cant do wiht police, they dont care mostly if need money and please not come tey do not that they have a coute to finish every end of month...

cirus...

in the rules said that..

14. Don't be a hero
Don't act like a tough guy towards the rest of the forum members, moderators and administrators. Mutual respect is what counts! 

the other rules for you

4. Don't go "Off-Topic" 
Try and keep the discussion on-topic as much as possible. We are the last to say that "off-topic is evil!" but that does not mean we condone total off-topicness. If a thread gets out of hand, leave it be, and contact a moderator/admin. 

*Have some respect for another person's topic. If the topic means nothing to you, then stay out, but don't make "funny" remarks. If your remarks are enough of an annoyance/offensive to other members, appropriate action may be taken by moderators and administrators, in accordance with these rules.*

and you doing taking the position of mod wihout you be one, so careful what you said or that can make you get ban

the problem is not the tag but the pic indee and how hisoshi reac about that

ok taht may be a little sexual but not explisite but that can be in *the discretion of NarutoForums * and that mean if one mod said is ok and come otehr and said is not and tag wihtout ask the person or mod if was permit to use it and do what they think, that just contradice the another mod, smod or adm who permit him/her to use it, beside the mayority in here (smod, mod and adm) already have said the pic was not necesary to get tag but the ban was ok for the untag, but there is come the problem, only because a girl dont like not mean everyone dont like it and before do something like that in one way and not wiht other mods and ban for the untag knowing she did wrong to tag it wihtout a pm or menseguer, well the mod have the fault


the pic can be category sexual but is not explitic, she in 4, yes like much woman can be in 4 and not call sexual only she geting something or ect (rl) but her ass are completerly covered, beside yes her top is undercover but same time is very cover wiht her arm the almoht everythign of her tits and we know that is sexy but not* explicite *one

and againg there come the important word

the discretion of NarutoForums mods, smod or adm and that mean they opinion goin to be diferent mostly when come to a member (maybe hiroshi have somethign in agains that member or the subforum) and do injust becasue she dont like some pics, not mean is need to get tag when is about the rules becuase againg is sexual but is not *explicite*

and other things is, why hisorshi t decide is explicite that pic if in real is not? that mean much comercial is purerly sexual explitity and not only sexual?



oh yeah, smod, mod adms, can unsban my sign?


----------



## EvilMoogle (Aug 31, 2009)

^ A mod reacted by posting a "what do you think of this sig" in the "is this offensive" thread.  When someone else confirmed it was probably borderline it was tagged.

If at that point, it was brought up in the SCR and discussed, it may have been untagged.  Who knows.

Interesting fact of the day, it wasn't Hiroshi who brought it up.  All your hate is misdirected


----------



## Freija (Aug 31, 2009)

Hiroshi did the banning of everyone... I call not misdirected, Hiroshi tagged it as well.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Aug 31, 2009)

Oh, well in that case shouldn't your rage be directed at the Admin that SModded Hiroshi?

And at Mbxx/Tazmo for Admining whoever that was?

Not to mention everyone who voted for the Admining of that person.

The staff members may not always agree on everything (obviously), but we also try not to act unilaterally.

Of course, if you just want to hate all (or most of) the staff members you can.  But I do have to wonder why you'd hang around at a place that you hate so many of the people who work hard to keep it running.


----------



## Freija (Aug 31, 2009)

Nope, that's going too far.


----------



## kidloco (Aug 31, 2009)

my question why hiroshi t not have said somethign abiout and le other said it >_>

and pleaseeeee hiroshi have did  unilaterally thing for long times

Please!!! and you like acomunity like a staff you need talk whatever happen in the forums and not let one go unitarally and worst wrost way??


i know some mod or smod and adm are good but damn other are worst to really same member want them out but only adm can do, and really some mods pass the line of they power

brb i goin to eat arroz con pollo


----------



## Cirus (Aug 31, 2009)

kidloco good post. I like it a lot.  Good read I must say.  Quite on topic and pertenant to the discusion.



EvilMoogle said:


> ^ A mod reacted by posting a "what do you think of this sig" in the "is this offensive" thread. When someone else confirmed it was probably borderline it was tagged.


 
If that were the case then that would only be 2 peoples opinions on it, and not a majority vote.  Thus you are saying it only takes 2 staff member to find something offensive.  Which would not be the opinion of the staff in its entirety.  In such you would then with every choice that comes up on findings of if it is offensive or not then 2 staff members could litterally make the choices for the entire forum with no one else having a say.

That is just how I inturpret that.



> If at that point, it was brought up in the SCR and discussed, it may have been untagged. Who knows.
> 
> Interesting fact of the day, it wasn't Hiroshi who brought it up. All your hate is misdirected


 Two problems I see there.

1.  Prior to any discussion on the matter with just 2 staff members agreeing on something a staff member can take action.  (That to me sounds like it doesn't leave anything up to vote because two people can just happen to aggree on everything without looking at the facts and do what they want.  Am I only the only one that sees anything wrong with that? That would be like 2 members of congress inturpreting everything and putting things into action before a proper vote on it can be reached.)

2.  You claim the hate that other members show is missdirected.  Yet you are not willing to show who the people were that came to such a conclusion.  Because of such you have no place to complain on where people place such hate do to the fact that you (and other staff members) are refusing to let people know.  

Basic fact:  When people are angry at something they want someone to blame.  If they can't find the person or people responcible for that then they will go and blame the person or people that are connected to such an act.  Like how a president can be blamed for how a country is doing, or how a political party can be blamed for things going wrong.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Aug 31, 2009)

Cirus said:


> If that were the case then that would only be 2 peoples opinions on it, and not a majority vote.  Thus you are saying it only takes 2 staff member to find something offensive.  Which would not be the opinion of the staff in its entirety.  In such you would then with every choice that comes up on findings of if it is offensive or not then 2 staff members could litterally make the choices for the entire forum with no one else having a say.



A fair point.  However it's important to keep in mind that it is quite easy to undo a tagged sig.  It's basically a chance to make a quick confirmation that you're not alone in what you think before taking action.

If it's really a questionable position, the member(s) in question is more than free to discuss it with the staff (either in the SCR or here in Q+C).  At that point it's easier to get a large number of mods opinions and we can come to a clearer conclusion.



Cirus said:


> 1.  Prior to any discussion on the matter with just 2 staff members agreeing on something a staff member can take action.  (That to me sounds like it doesn't leave anything up to vote because two people can just happen to aggree on everything without looking at the facts and do what they want.  Am I only the only one that sees anything wrong with that? That would be like 2 members of congress inturpreting everything and putting things into action before a proper vote on it can be reached.)



That's not really a realistic position.  That's like saying a jury of your peers has to convict you of speeding before the officer can write you a ticket.

Bring the ticket to court and contest it if you feel that it was written in error.



Cirus said:


> 2.  You claim the hate that other members show is missdirected.  Yet you are not willing to show who the people were that came to such a conclusion.  Because of such you have no place to complain on where people place such hate do to the fact that you (and other staff members) are refusing to let people know.
> 
> Basic fact:  When people are angry at something they want someone to blame.  If they can't find the person or people responcible for that then they will go and blame the person or people that are connected to such an act.  Like how a president can be blamed for how a country is doing, or how a political party can be blamed for things going wrong.



Unfortunately it would be an offense for me to leak the names of the mods that agreed that it should be tagged (several have stepped up since it was tagged) or those that disagreed.

I'm just pointing out that singling out Hiroshi isn't really fair to her because following that line of reasoning it's far better to hate the entire staff (or at least the large majority that played some role in her getting to where she is today).

But then this has long since shifted to an emotional issue rather than a rational rules discussion.


----------



## Cirus (Aug 31, 2009)

EvilMoogle said:


> A fair point. However it's important to keep in mind that it is quite easy to undo a tagged sig. It's basically a chance to make a quick confirmation that you're not alone in what you think before taking action.
> 
> If it's really a questionable position, the member(s) in question is more than free to discuss it with the staff (either in the SCR or here in Q+C). At that point it's easier to get a large number of mods opinions and we can come to a clearer conclusion.


 
Then if that were the case if 2 staff members thought the same thing then a thread would be made to confirm it with the rest of the staff before doing the tagging?  That way it would then allow people to review things before taking actioin.  And then things can get thought out before an action is taken so people know what is and is not going to be done, and set up what escilations are to happen in advance if it comes down to sigging it.

To me that would make it easier and less of a headache then going through what just happened.




> That's not really a realistic position. That's like saying a jury of your peers has to convict you of speeding before the officer can write you a ticket.
> 
> Bring the ticket to court and contest it if you feel that it was written in error.


 
Well that does sound right, but here is the thing.  The giving of the ticket is just an acusation of speeding.  It is not the presumtion that the person is actually guilty.  Which is why people can go to court and "fight" the ticket.  Though if the person just pays the ticket the the person automatically accepts guilt.  Where in the court the judge will make the choice of guilt or not.

Lets take the sig for example.  If it was found offensive by 2 staff members, then a PM is sent to the member using it telling them to go make a thread in the SCR.  In that thread the person then debates why they should be allowed to keep the sig as is while the 2 staff members then argue why it should be tagged.  After 24 hours of allowed discussion the remaing staff members then vote as to what they think.  If it is then found it needs to be tagged then it gets tagged.  If it is not found where it needs to be tagged then it doesn't need to be tagged.

Also no where does it say in any law or books that it is a jury of the peers.  Cause then if a lawyer were to be put on trial then the entire jury would have to be nothing but lawyers.  Which is the worst thing that could ever happen.




> Unfortunately it would be an offense for me to leak the names of the mods that agreed that it should be tagged (several have stepped up since it was tagged) or those that disagreed.
> 
> I'm just pointing out that singling out Hiroshi isn't really fair to her because following that line of reasoning it's far better to hate the entire staff (or at least the large majority that played some role in her getting to where she is today).
> 
> But then this has long since shifted to an emotional issue rather than a rational rules discussion.


 
Sadly then that is a headache you guys are going to have to deal with.  You can't expect to do one thing and then expect everyone to agree with it because it is only in a person interst to find out the who, why, when, and where.

The fact is people don't know the majority that did play a point, or who played at all in it other then Hiroshi.  It may not be fair and I agree with it, but you guys are the one causing it to happen because of you guys wanting to keep thing secret.  It is the trade off that goes with such a choice.

Well I think that is true to a certain extent.  Alot of stuff people are bringing up doesn't pertain to what was originally argued, but still some piont need to be addressed.  Though I think that an appoligy and an agreement to think things out more would work more then any debating could ever do (both sides doing one and not just a general I'm sorry).  Which would probably resolve this whole thing. 


Here is a random thought for both sides.  Put yourself into the shoes of people who see things from the other side.  Try to see what they are seeing.  What do you think they are looking for?


----------



## EvilMoogle (Aug 31, 2009)

Cirus said:


> Then if that were the case if 2 staff members thought the same thing then a thread would be made to confirm it with the rest of the staff before doing the tagging?  That way it would then allow people to review things before taking actioin.  And then things can get thought out before an action is taken so people know what is and is not going to be done, and set up what escilations are to happen in advance if it comes down to sigging it.
> 
> To me that would make it easier and less of a headache then going through what just happened.


Because then it would take 2 months to remove porn from someones sig (assuming for the moment it was on the more severe side of the equation)?  Sorry in the case of content problems we're not going to wait around for a greater consensus.  That can happen after-the-fact if needed.




Cirus said:


> Well that does sound right, but here is the thing.  The giving of the ticket is just an acusation of speeding.  It is not the presumtion that the person is actually guilty.  Which is why people can go to court and "fight" the ticket.  Though if the person just pays the ticket the the person automatically accepts guilt.  Where in the court the judge will make the choice of guilt or not.


Um, what you're suggesting is if a police officer radar-tags you for speeding, instead of pulling you over and writing you a ticket, they instead radio a coworker to check and see if it's worth writing a ticket for that level of speeding.  If the coworker agrees, they then send you a letter asking you to come to court to explain the speeding.

No.  They pull you over and write you a ticket.  If you think there are circumstances worth discussing you bring it up in court (or you talk to the officer while he has you pulled over).

In the forum example this would be either PMing a mod to chat about it, or opening a thread in SCR. 




Cirus said:


> Sadly then that is a headache you guys are going to have to deal with.  You can't expect to do one thing and then expect everyone to agree with it because it is only in a person interst to find out the who, why, when, and where.



Yeah, it's going to be a headache.  Sadly there's not much I can do about it.

Personally I'd love it if there were a way to make a hard-and-fast rule for what's okay open in a sig and what needs to be tagged.  But the truth of the matter is it's a very subjective subject.

I can't browse the forum from work because a lot of the "okay" sigs would get me fired on the spot if my manager saw it (even assuming he were okay with the browsing a Naruto forum from work, which would be debatable).  So using that judgment level we should tag a lot more sigs.

Alternately, I'm jaded by many years of raw exposure to the Internet so it takes something very bizarre to even warrant a notice from me.  So personally I stay out of the "debatable content" thread for the most part.


----------



## tgre (Aug 31, 2009)

Distracted said:


> 4.  How much of this is really just the blender getting it's "mod hating" rocks off?



lmao... you'd be surprised.

I for one am pretty apathetic towards the whole thing and only here for my own benefit. I just don't want (should in the unlikely event that I wish to sport a risque sig hee hee hee) the same thing to happen to me.

Which I'm sure many of the members in this thread are feeling as well.


----------



## Cirus (Aug 31, 2009)

EvilMoogle said:


> Because then it would take 2 months to remove porn from someones sig (assuming for the moment it was on the more severe side of the equation)? Sorry in the case of content problems we're not going to wait around for a greater consensus. That can happen after-the-fact if needed.


 
I am not saying that should be the case but common sense dictates a lot of it.  Just that in the cases where it can be viewed as boarderline then it should be done in such a mannor.  Which something can easily be came to a discision on in 48 hours or less.  Soon as 2 people agree one of those 2 makes a thread.  24 to 36 hours go by where people can voice their opinions, and then tally it up at the end and there you have your answer.  I am sure a majority of the staff show up on the forum over a 24 to 36 hour period.  If not then you got some problems you need to deal with.



> Um, what you're suggesting is if a police officer radar-tags you for speeding, instead of pulling you over and writing you a ticket, they instead radio a coworker to check and see if it's worth writing a ticket for that level of speeding. If the coworker agrees, they then send you a letter asking you to come to court to explain the speeding.


 
Please reread what I posted.  The ticket itself is that acusation of what you did.  If you read the back of the ticket it gives you 3 options to check when you go to the courthouse:  not guilty, guilty, no contest.  (At least if I remember it correctly.)  

The cop catches you.  Listens to what you have to say right now (90% of people actually talk themselves into a ticket) and then writes you the ticket based on what he/she thinks.  You are now accused and have a court date.  You carry on with your marry way untill that time comes.  If you want to argue it then you show up to court on the assigned day and you claim your innocence.  The judge will listen to the facts from both sides and then make his ruling.  

Or if you don't want to fight it you show up at the courthouse to pay your ticket.  You check the box marked guilty/no contest and you pay the fine. 

Cops believe it or not have a lot of leeway when it comes to writing tickets.  If you were doing something big they wont let you go.  Plus they are going based on a lot of ground rules and situations that they were breifed over.  So they have been shown similar circumstances on how to judge and act around people.

The ticket in this case would be the PM giving the options.  Fight it and show up the to SCR, or tag it (no you tagging it for them).  If both are then ignored after some time of the member being active on the boards (6 hours) then staff take appropriate actions.



> No. They pull you over and write you a ticket. If you think there are circumstances worth discussing you bring it up in court (or you talk to the officer while he has you pulled over).


 
Agreed.



> In the forum example this would be either PMing a mod to chat about it, or opening a thread in SCR.


I believe it would be the mod PMing the member first to let them know, and what their options are to do things.  If then member doesn't do one of them staff can take their own actions to deak with problems (on the questionable sigs).




> Yeah, it's going to be a headache. Sadly there's not much I can do about it.
> 
> Personally I'd love it if there were a way to make a hard-and-fast rule for what's okay open in a sig and what needs to be tagged. But the truth of the matter is it's a very subjective subject.


 
You guys are in it by choice, and it is how you deal with the conciquences of that choice which show the character of staff.

Still if you want to make it fast and quick all you need to do is just set up the ground rules when looking at things.  Not just general ideas as what are already stated in the rules.  Yes it will involve some/little giving up of discression but then when you guys look at things it will be a quick glance over of does it meet this criteria or not and then move on.  Thats what I have been saying for a long time.  It would eleminate so many headaches, smooth things out, make it fair for everyone, and you would hear less people complaining over it.



> I can't browse the forum from work because a lot of the "okay" sigs would get me fired on the spot if my manager saw it (even assuming he were okay with the browsing a Naruto forum from work, which would be debatable). So using that judgment level we should tag a lot more sigs.
> 
> Alternately, I'm jaded by many years of raw exposure to the Internet so it takes something very bizarre to even warrant a notice from me. So personally I stay out of the "debatable content" thread for the most part.


 I don't know why you would be on it at work but that is none of my buisness.  

Though the last part may be the reason why you should be in that thread.  Reason being is sinse you are accustomed to all that stuff and nothing will really suprise you then you can look at things objectivly with a cool head.  Where as if you get someone who is not then they will react more to what they see which will cause overreactions to content.  Don't have someone who has strict views of images looking at those things, have someone who has a nuetral opinion on the matter that can't be shocked by it.

It is all just a matter of changing things up a little to figure things out.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Aug 31, 2009)

Cirus said:


> I am not saying that should be the case but common sense dictates a lot of it.  Just that in the cases where it can be viewed as boarderline then it should be done in such a mannor.  Which something can easily be came to a discision on in 48 hours or less.  Soon as 2 people agree one of those 2 makes a thread.  24 to 36 hours go by where people can voice their opinions, and then tally it up at the end and there you have your answer.  I am sure a majority of the staff show up on the forum over a 24 to 36 hour period.  If not then you got some problems you need to deal with.


And yet when someone reports something, they always expect it to be dealt with immediately.  So we have to make concessions.

And with potentially pornographic material in signatures we're not going to wait 24 hours.

It makes far more sense to tag the sig and then begin the discussion.




Cirus said:


> Please reread what I posted.  The ticket itself is that acusation of what you did.  If you read the back of the ticket it gives you 3 options to check when you go to the courthouse:  not guilty, guilty, no contest.  (At least if I remember it correctly.)


Yes, and the warning/tagging of the signature is letting you know that the judgement call on the scene was that your sig was out of line.

Perhaps not as clean as a radar reading, but it's the same thing at the end of the day.

(Interesting side point, a police officer doesn't need a radar reading they can pull you over based off of their personal visual judgment alone, though the court case is far more iffy then)



Cirus said:


> You guys are in it by choice, and it is how you deal with the conciquences of that choice which show the character of staff.
> 
> Still if you want to make it fast and quick all you need to do is just set up the ground rules when looking at things.  Not just general ideas as what are already stated in the rules.  Yes it will involve some/little giving up of discression but then when you guys look at things it will be a quick glance over of does it meet this criteria or not and then move on.  Thats what I have been saying for a long time.  It would eleminate so many headaches, smooth things out, make it fair for everyone, and you would hear less people complaining over it.


Problem is there's no possible way to make a clear defining line as to what is "objectionable" the very term implies it is a personal judgment.  Hence everyone's definition of what is and is not objectionable differs.

So we really have two choices at this point.

1)  Yield to the more reserved members of the forum (parents, young children, etc) in acting quick to tag objectionable material while a longer discussion is carried on.  This sadly will result in some hurt feelings when people have their signatures tagged.

2)  Yield to the more open members in leaving anything and everything open until a full discussion can be carried out.  This will lead to "why am I getting tagged/punished now, I've had this sig for weeks!" more frequently, and hurting the feelings of any of the more reserved members that see the signature.

Personally I lean towards one simply because the "hurt" party is far smaller and I think it is a better way to run the forum in general.

As an extension here, if you end up with a part of your signature tagged and you can't see the reason for it, make a thread asking about it (or PM a mod, though the former has a much quicker response time in general).  It is not a personal attack on you.


----------



## kidloco (Aug 31, 2009)

one thing

that is not sexual explicitity, was sexy, mostly echii, so the part you said about pornografic, is out of question


----------



## EvilMoogle (Aug 31, 2009)

I was talking in general, not in this specific case.


----------



## Gooba (Aug 31, 2009)

> I for one am pretty apathetic towards the whole thing and only here for my own benefit. I just don't want (should in the unlikely event that I wish to sport a risque sig hee hee hee) the same thing to happen to me.
> 
> Which I'm sure many of the members in this thread are feeling as well.


Don't worry about it.  Absolutely no part of the ban had anything to do with Fable being confused about the rules.  There is _no way_ for this to happen to anyone without them consciously making the decision for it to happen.

This is why I think the outrage is so ridiculous.


----------



## Rolling~Star (Aug 31, 2009)

why isn't hiroshi participating in this discussion anyway

she's the key person to this whole fucking thing, if any of you want to resolve this "problem", she's gotta be here.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Aug 31, 2009)

Rolling~Star said:


> why isn't hiroshi participating in this discussion anyway
> 
> she's the key person to this whole fucking thing, if any of you want to resolve this "problem", she's gotta be here.



What questions do you have that you feel only Hiroshi can answer?


----------



## Rolling~Star (Aug 31, 2009)

EvilMoogle said:


> What questions do you have that you feel only Hiroshi can answer?



Well, I don't have any questions for Hiroshi myself. But I can't speak for Fable, or any other person. 

I dunno, it just feels that since she's the staff member in question, it would be best if she posted in this thread as well.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Aug 31, 2009)

Rolling~Star said:


> Well, I don't have any questions for Hiroshi myself. But I can't speak for Fable, or any other person.
> 
> I dunno, it just feels that since she's the staff member in question, it would be best if she posted in this thread as well.



Okay, what are you questioning about Hiroshi?

The last few pages have been pretty consistent in the message.


----------



## Gooba (Aug 31, 2009)

Hiroshi didn't even bring up the sig in question.  You guys just fucking love burning her in effigy when she is almost never acting alone and often isn't even the instigator or key person in the action you all object to. 

Hiroshi gets _sooooo _much more shit than she deserves even if we accept that every action you've raged at her about was worthy of rage.


----------



## Rolling~Star (Aug 31, 2009)

EvilMoogle said:


> Okay, what are you questioning about Hiroshi?
> 
> The last few pages have been pretty consistent in the message.



everyone else's question. why'd she even find it "offensive"? 

the banning i understand, removing a tagged image. what the blender wants to know is why the image was tagged in the first place, while there are a lot of images sporting the same thing around the forums (not naming who has these sigs for anonymity, but im pretty sure you've seen some yourself, aka some admin)



Gooba said:


> Hiroshi didn't even bring up the sig in question.  You guys just fucking love burning her in effigy when she is almost never acting alone and often isn't even the instigator or key person in the action you all object to.
> 
> Hiroshi gets _sooooo _much more shit than she deserves even if we accept that every action you've raged at her about was worthy of rage.



so you know what she does is worthy of our rage then. good work


----------



## EvilMoogle (Aug 31, 2009)

Rolling~Star said:


> everyone else's question. why'd she even find it "offensive"?



Read up a bit.  She wasn't the one that brought it up.

In that respect she's no more guilty than I am, so why such rage at her?


----------



## tgre (Aug 31, 2009)

EvilMoogle said:


> Read up a bit.  She wasn't the one that brought it up.
> 
> In that respect she's no more guilty than I am, so why such rage at her?



There has always been a deep animosity towards Hiroshi for quite a while.

Members are just basically looking for an excuse to lash out at her.

Personally I have no animosity towards her but I can't speak for everyone *cough Blender*


----------



## Rolling~Star (Aug 31, 2009)

EvilMoogle said:


> Read up a bit.  She wasn't the one that brought it up.
> 
> In that respect she's no more guilty than I am, so why such rage at her?



i'm not really involved in this matter, and i'm not raging at all. sure, i was involved in the sigban, but i only ever thought of it as something fun to just join anyway.

anyway, it was the action of banning for something of questionable validity, and the rules behind it, that caused all the trouble. *sigh* regardless of who actually did it. blender only blames hiroshi because she was involved and she already has a record with the blender.

i think all the blender needs is a proper explanation, one which they'll accept, and they'll stop complaining. and lol, good luck with that.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Aug 31, 2009)

Rolling~Star said:


> anyway, it was the action of banning for something of questionable validity, and the rules behind it, that caused all the trouble. *sigh* regardless of who actually did it. blender only blames hiroshi because she was involved and she already has a record with the blender.


This needs to be clarified.

Fable was not banned due to the content of his sig, he was banned because he untagged a sig that was tagged by a mod.

And no member of the staff has disagreed with the ban for this (even those that disagree on the topic of the content of the sig).

He should have brought this up in the SCR or in a PM to the staff rather than just untagging it.



Rolling~Star said:


> i think all the blender needs is a proper explanation, one which they'll accept, and they'll stop complaining. and lol, good luck with that.



Everything I can say here has pretty much already been said.  If that's not acceptable to them, I don't know what else to do.

Lets try the "speeding ticket" analogy again one more time just for fun.

Imagine you're driving down a street.  Your speedometer is cleanly on 35mph.  Red and blue lights flash behind you and a police officer pulls you over.

The police officer informs you that he's going to write you a ticket for going 35 in a 25 zone.  Now lets assume for the moment you think the speed limit is actually 35 and the police officer is confused.

You have a few normal options:

1) Talk to the officer, explain that you think it is a 35 zone and try to work it out that way.
2) Assume you were wrong and pay the ticket without further complaint.
3) Politely accept the ticket from the police officer for now and take the ticket to court to attempt to prove your case there.

However in this case they opted for a different solution:

4) Assume that since you're right and the police officer is wrong that you have no obligation to pay the ticket nor show up in court.  Continue to drive 35 through that area.

The funny thing is, if you choose "4" in real life what you'll find happens is you get a warrant issued for your arrest rather than a simple speeding fine, and the next time you get pulled over you'll end up getting dragged in to court (likely with complementary night in jail) to discuss the issue.  And *even if* you successfully prove at that point that the speed limit was indeed 35 you will _still_ have to face the charges for ignoring the ticket (including the impound cost for wherever they towed your car).

So in short, in the future if you find your sig tagged with no apparent rhyme nor reason, make an inquiry as to why before undoing it.

Even assuming the worst-case scenario where a staff member does indeed have a personal vendetta against you if you make a thread in the SCR there will be visibility to the other mods and it can be discussed.


----------



## tgre (Aug 31, 2009)

I found my analogy to be a little more accurate though 



> It's like police telling you to stop j-walking in the middle of the night and you going: "What the shit!?" and proceeding to do so. Then they get pissed off because you just took their authority and wiped your ass with it... so they cuff you and wait for your parents or higher authority to bail you out.


----------



## Hexa (Sep 1, 2009)

Yeah, Hiroshi just actioned the sig tagging, since not all mods have sig powers.  She wasn't the one who brought it up.  She'd be more like the "MOD B" in Blue's previous scenario.  Though it's worth noting there was no MOD C.

People are still on this?  Power to you for sticking up against oppressive sig _tagging_ of borderline images on an anime/manga forum.


----------



## tgre (Sep 1, 2009)

bitch...! We take our signatures of near-naked cartoon females as ultimate serious business!


----------



## Garfield (Sep 1, 2009)

Man, who pays you guys to take all this stuff so seriously instead of just shrugging it off?


----------



## Zaru (Sep 1, 2009)

Anything can be serious business if you're bored enough.


----------



## isanon (Sep 1, 2009)

adee said:


> Man, who pays you guys to take all this stuff so seriously instead of just shrugging it off?


TEH INTERWEBZ ARE SERIEUZ BUIZNEZ !!!

well seriusly a lot of people here talk about massive rage against hiroshi 

all i see is massive rage against an uncalled for and quite unessecary act that hiroshi did. i rage against hiroshi, i dont even know who hiroshi is. i rage against unnecesary cencurship. 

as i have said earlier (quite rudly too gooba, sorry about that i not suposed to rant early in the mornings) "sugestivness" is in the eye of the beholder and is quite frankly a ridiculus rule since some staaf members will let you get away with ALOT more than others. 

fo example, one of the blenderites had an ava, for quite some time, showing kenpachi fucking his liutenant (the loli girl) with only smileys covering varius parts, another blenderite had an ava that showed a woman flashing her tits with only 2 rep squares covering her nipples, and as i said earlier some smod (i think it had a yellow name) had a doodle gif of naruto geting assfucked by sasuke (uncencured) 

if they didnt get banned/tagged/removed for sugestivness why the hell shoould fable have been


----------



## Garfield (Sep 1, 2009)

So you want a public apology from someone who erred on the right side of the rules vs someone who erred on the wrong side?
And Fable dude isn't going to apologize publicly?

I think it's only fair that if he demands an apology then he should apologize for stepping on the line too.

I mean seriously, he's unbanned and if he feels Hiroshi made a mistake shouldn't he approach her personally? I expect Hiroshi would be much more regretful if such a big unnecessary public deal isn't made of it? You seriously expect someone to take shit for being partially wrong if you make a public thread about it? Would you?


----------



## Hentai (Sep 1, 2009)

Hey I didnt start this so I dont have any problem.
Freija is right in my opinion because the punishment i would have received was too hard for what I did.
Since someone in the Staff though the same way i was unbanned.


----------



## Garfield (Sep 1, 2009)

Yeah don't worry I'm not taking this any more seriously than Freija did


----------



## Mr Clean (Sep 1, 2009)

Mods are stupid.


----------



## Esponer (Sep 1, 2009)

Whether a picture is inappropriate or not is _very_ subjective, and everyone who's pointed out that some other mod has been fine with much 'worse' _does_ have a point. 

If your get your signature tagged or avatar removed and you think it's not right, there are two things to remember:



The staff won't be swayed immediately by an argument of inconsistency. There might be stuff they missed, and there might be stuff that was sanctioned by some staff who are more lenient but which doesn't represent what most staff think is okay. A really 'bad' image that was okay according to some mod in the Blender doesn't set the rule for the whole forum.
To get them to reconsider you have to go about it the _right_ way. See EvilMoogle's analogy. If you're impolite, and worse yet if you untag it, you'll get banned… and you'll be lucky if they rethink their position after you've been an ass to them.
If you're reading and worried that what happened to Fable will happen to you, I'd advise leaving it tagged if it's tagged and opening up a PM discussion with the mod you think was responsible. Ask for an appeal. Bring in a mod you think will agree with you if it's not getting anywhere. If it doesn't work after that, choose between getting yourself banned to make a point nobody will listen to or giving up one slightly naughty picture.


----------



## Hentai (Sep 1, 2009)

This thread becomes boring.
Freija is banned.
Mods wont change from themselves, so maybe Gooba will work on it as promised.

I think this thread solved its purpose and isnt leading anywhere anymore.


----------



## Zaru (Sep 1, 2009)

Moral of the story:

-Mods should get more input on their actions and tell a member why the fuck they did what they did.
-Members shouldn't untag tagged sigs.
-Cirus takes things cirusly


----------



## geG (Sep 1, 2009)

> -Mods should tell a member why the fuck they did what they did.


Isn't that exactly what Hiroshi did with Fable?

Or did something else come up in the 11 pages I didn't read


----------



## Hentai (Sep 1, 2009)

Geg said:


> Isn't that exactly what Hiroshi did with Fable?
> 
> Or did something else come up in the 11 pages I didn't read


Nono, she sent me a message that she tagged it. (which was obvious anyway, since she left a message in the Sig too - so unnecessary)
But I wasnt informed about any details of my ban and sigban.


----------



## Kira Yamato (Sep 1, 2009)

There was some good points made by certain members but this thread has pretty much ran it's course.


----------



## Hiroshi (Sep 2, 2009)

I apologize for not posting here. I wasn't really able to access the forums the past few days due to RL. But I just wanted to post a few things:

1. Sorry I didn't send a PM about the sig ban. I'm very forgetful about this. I'm so used to banning dupes so when I sig-ban someone I usually forgot that I have to PM the user. So Fable, I'm sorry about that.

2. Also, I could have handled the situation with back-lash/revolt better. I was pre-occupied with something but I do apologize for that.

3. As stated, I was not the staff member who brought the sig into question. I just wanted to make that clear. I contributed my say and then did the tagging as I have the power. The staff makes the decision on the set, and then a person with the sig editing permits carries it out.

4. A sig does not have to contain nudity to be tagged. Nudity usually leads to a sig removal while a _suggestive _set usually leads to a tag. Since there are many different types of _suggestive _sets we bring it up for discussion - that is what was done.

5. Fable, if you wanted more opinions on the set after I tagged it, you could have PMed me asking for more opinions. I would have agreed to bring it up again without a doubt.

So yeah, there's my 2 cents. If you have any questions, feel free to PM me.


----------

