# Intolerance to Flaming



## Seph (Feb 21, 2012)

The purpose of this thread is not to complain about my getting banned; rather, I wish to identify something that many people have been complaining about for months, since the very second I've been active starting November 2011. It's the general lack of tolerance on this forum. For the purpose of this thread, I will not give the name of any single moderator as I now believe the problem lies within the system itself--as opposed to any moderator causing the problem per se. I believe that the main purpose of Narutoforums is to give people a fun environment in which to have a good time. However, I feel that the NF has failed in its main purpose for a while now; due to the fact that the environment here has been needlessly strict in some boards. I'll start with the Konoha Library.

It's a well known fact that, in the Konoha Library, it doesn't matter if a topic doesn't have any flaming at all; if a topic has the mere *potential* to cause any heated discussion, then it's instantly going to be closed. The mods of the Konoha Library have decided for whatever reason that any kind of chaotic discussion is not allowed at all--which is why I got permbanned from making topics in the first place. None of my threads had any flaming whatsoever and they still got closed (and me banned) for this very reason. The fact that I haven't got permanently banned from posting is proof of the fact that I have not flamed anyone; mods have been unable to find anything incriminating. If you don't believe me about mods being strict, just look around the KL for a day or two and observe the kinds of topics they close.

They fail to realize that people like to get passionate when they talk about the things they're fans of and when they talk about the things they enjoy. We have an entire board dedicated to "Fanclubs," which is clear evidence of the fact that some people literally worship their favorite characters. Why shouldn't we give people the opportunity to defend them as long as it doesn't harm anyone? Is not preventing this against the very purpose of the forum itself? *There's nothing wrong with heated discussion as long as there's no flaming.*


Me and Nikushimi got banned for a week for pointing out Turrin's spelling mistakes.
I got banned for 5 days for calling someone "not the sharpest pencil in the pencil box."
Mali got for calling someone a "nitwit."

Don't you guys think this is going too far? Yes, they're not the nicest things in the world, but people have to get used to the fact that they aren't going to be in kindergarten for the rest of their lives. Why do the mods have to act like pre-school teachers? Hostile attitude is an inexorable part of life and discouraging it deludes one, causing them to think that they're going to be protected from such attitude their entire lives. This is simply not true. I can understand banning someone for telling another to "burn in hell," but not for telling someone that they're a nitwit. That type of insult wouldn't exist even in kindergarten.

The moderators are not the moral police. They don't decide what's right and wrong (although they're acting like they are nowadays); they ought to take action if a comment from one person hurts another and that's all they should do.

This is the most active anime forum on the internet. Anime can be a very serious topic of discussion for some people, and I think we all can agree that most people here take this very seriously. How can people enjoy themselves if they can't get passionate about the things they want to talk about? *It's inevitable that heated discussions will happen from time to time, and preventing them goes against the very purpose of the forum itself.*


----------



## Gunners (Feb 21, 2012)

You need to appreciate the difficulty that's involved with managing things the way you describe. When there are 10 people involved you can say that it is easy to manage heated debates, if someone is getting to carried away you can call them to the side and say ''Look calm down'' ( which is done through warnings), if a sensitive topic is brought up you can keep an eye on the topic so that it doesn't cross the line. 

When there are 100s of people involved in many different conversations it becomes incredibly difficult and time consuming to make sure each individual topic doesn't cross the line. As there's a limited number of mods who cannot who have to be efficient with the time they can afford the section the practical option is to restrict threads that have a high potential of turning into flamewars.


----------



## Octavian (Feb 21, 2012)

hmm i'm surprised you got perma banned from creating topics. (since xerces is still running rampant ). but i think your edits were good. some ppl may have found them offensive since they were mostly about a particular character but i think ppl should expect that from such kind on threads (that is the whole point; to make light of a situation). if anything the mods should allow you to atleast post those. i saw a hilarious edit regarding gai v akatsuki the other day and its doing just fine. 

regarding the mods, i can't say much. i've had a few posts deleted here and there by them but other than that, i haven't had any bad encounters with any of them


----------



## Seph (Feb 21, 2012)

Gunners said:


> You need to appreciate the difficulty that's involved with managing things the way you describe. When there are 10 people involved you can say that it is easy to manage heated debates, if someone is getting to carried away you can call them to the side and say ''Look calm down'' ( which is done through warnings), if a sensitive topic is brought up you can keep an eye on the topic so that it doesn't cross the line.
> 
> When there are 100s of people involved in many different conversations it becomes incredibly difficult and time consuming to make sure each individual topic doesn't cross the line. As there's a limited number of mods who cannot who have to be efficient with the time they can afford the section the practical option is to restrict threads that have a high potential of turning into flamewars.



*Solutions:*

1. Hire more moderators, the KL currently only has one active moderator which is just plain ridiculous.
2. Encourage use of the report function to the community; you can offer people who use the report function often the chance to become a candidate for a moderator or something.

Doing what you say goes against the very purpose of the forum itself, as I have outlined above.


----------



## αce (Feb 21, 2012)

> It's a well known fact that, in the Konoha Library, it doesn't matter if a topic doesn't have any flaming at all; if a topic has the mere potential to cause any heated discussion, then it's instantly going to be closed.



Yeah, this is a problem. Although I can see the logic behind closing Itachi vs Jiraiya threads on the get go, some of the threads get closed for no reason.

For example, one of the mods in the KL section attempted to close Xerces thread _instantly_, although that was overturned, because it'd be ridiculous to do so. And before this thread, I guarantee if I made a thread questioning a major characters ability which would attract a lot of attentions from said characters fans, the thread would have a tiny lifespan.




> Me and Nikushimi got banned for a week for pointing out Turrin's spelling mistakes.



:sanji




> I got banned for 5 days for calling someone "not the sharpest pencil in the pencil box."



People get banned for the most harmless insults. There are subtle jabs at people and then there's out right unacceptable flaming. The former shouldn't be something you can get banned for automatically or without warning.






At the end of the day, the mods are doing what they deem is right, but at the same time they have to realize that attempting to nanny us into having conversations with sunshine and rainbows while having tea parties isn't going to happen. Especially in the library sections. Be a little more lenient, but draw the line depending on the situation. Don't paint a brush over every thread you see.




There's also the issue of deleting and moving posts. Mart made a very legitimiate complaint thread about the manga, but he also pointed out good parts and his own constructive ideas. It was merged in the complaints thread, where no one will now see it. Clumping all complaints, regardless of their substance, into a complaint thread isn't a good idea.

Also, for some reason, reacting to a post with emoticons or laughing at a post you sincerely thought was funny gets deleted as spam.





Edit:
Also, what was the reason for Seph edit thread bans? From what I saw, they were completely harmless. He took jabs at Minato, but who really got offended by that? It was simply in jest. His threads are actually some of the best in the KL considering the cess pool the fanwars have started over there.


----------



## T-Bag (Feb 21, 2012)

i gotta agree bro, like they be banning people for the stupidest lil things. part of my ban this week was because i got a lil off topic (1 day ban but still wtf..)

banning people for flaming is fine, understood. but if u ban ppl for making edit threads or just for getting a lil heated with each other is fucked up. its a fan forum... ya treat this place like some holy place or someshit


----------



## Seph (Feb 21, 2012)

> Also, what was the reason for Seph edit thread bans? From what I saw, they were completely harmless. He took jabs at Minato, but who really got offended by that? It was simply in jest. His threads are actually some of the best in the KL considering the cess pool the fanwars have started over there.



I can't post any topics anywhere, Ace. No exceptions.

Can we talk about general policy please, rather than my banning per se?


----------



## αce (Feb 21, 2012)

Yes, was just wondering to be honest.
Although when I have time I suppose I'll make a list as to what I think the mods should consider doing.


----------



## Gunners (Feb 21, 2012)

Seph said:


> *Solutions:*
> 
> 1. Hire more moderators, the KL currently only has one active moderator which is just plain ridiculous.
> 2. Encourage use of the report function to the community; you can offer people who use the report function often the chance to become a candidate for a moderator or something.
> ...


Maybe the section needs moderators but hiring enough moderators to deal with the problems I listed would come with their own problems. In order to keep a close eye on the topic created ( or in your second point posts reported) a substantial amount of mods would have to be hired. There's the issue of finding people who are willing to devote their time and effort to such a trivial cause, there's the issue of finding people who have shown the capability of moderating and then there is the issue of not wanting to disrupt the harmony that currently exist amongst the staff members in that section. 

You mention people using the report function as though that would cut the amount of time they would have to spend dealing with the problem. They would still have to read through threads to assess who is culpable for the thread derailing and whether a post has gone too far or if someone is being overly sensitive. They will then have to explain to the poster why his post was not acceptable ( or fear the wrath of people complaining about the mod in question not responding to him). 

On top of that reading the reports itself is time consuming in itself therefore it is an inadequate solution to the issue of taking too much time and effort to deal with.


----------



## Seph (Feb 21, 2012)

> There's the issue of finding people who are willing to devote their time and effort to such a trivial cause, there's the issue of finding people who have shown the capability of moderating and then there is the issue of not wanting to disrupt the harmony that currently exist amongst the staff members in that section.



There are plenty of mature people on this forum who want to contribute to make this forum a better place. Even on the KL. Kenneth is a pretty cool guy, for example.

I think that harmony should be completely destroyed and rebuilt with new staff members, because these staff members clearly take it too far.



> You mention people using the report function as though that would cut the amount of time they would have to spend dealing with the problem. They would still have to read through threads to assess who is culpable for the thread derailing and whether a post has gone too far or if someone is being overly sensitive. They will then have to explain to the poster why his post was not acceptable ( or fear the wrath of people complaining about the mod in question not responding to him).



I admit that this solution is in itself not effective. It's the combination of these two factors rather than this factor solely improving the Library. 

We could have moderators who solely read these reports rather than do the closing and infracting and requesting bans and such. Mini-moderators, maybe.

There are so many possible solutions; acting like the moral police is not one of them.


----------



## Matador (Feb 21, 2012)

There's a reason I don't hang around the Naruto Section, the Battledome, Library, and Anime Section absolutely lack tolerance to any type of PG-13+ actions or comments.

I don't believe you're incorrect by any means, it's spot on when it comes down to the Naruto Section. But a ton of other sections are actually, very tolerant. If you look at even half the posts I have, it's filled with trolling, and flaming. The Bleach Section and Outskirts Section are very tolerant FME.

Unless your complaint isn't about that, then my bad.


----------



## αce (Feb 21, 2012)

> Maybe the section needs moderators but hiring enough moderators to deal with the problems I listed would come with their own problems. In order to keep a close eye on the topic created ( or in your second point posts reported) a substantial amount of mods would have to be hired. There's the issue of finding people who are willing to devote their time and effort to such a trivial cause, there's the issue of finding people who have shown the capability of moderating and then there is the issue of not wanting to disrupt the harmony that currently exist amongst the staff members in that section.



Considering the number of active and passionate posters in the KL, I'll agree that the nature of moderating that section is extremely difficult. However, the problem isn't with the amount of posters in this case.

The problem, as Seph laid out, is the unfair penalizing of some individuals for taking light jabs at other people. As I said before, mods should be slightly more lenient on what they consider to be flaming, and shouldn't ban someone based on the assumption that the argument would escalate (unless they are clearly flamebaiting) into a beyond salvagable thread.

Unless the poster is overly sensitive (there is a report button), these should largely be ignored. 

However, given the fact that threads involing Minato and Itachi tend to go over 6-7 pages, another mod is probably needed to make sure stuff like this doesn't get out of hand. Modding that section alone probably isn't easy, I'll acknowledge that fact.





> You mention people using the report function as though that would cut the amount of time they would have to spend dealing with the problem. They would still have to read through threads to assess who is culpable for the thread derailing and whether a post has gone too far or if someone is being overly sensitive. They will then have to explain to the poster why his post was not acceptable ( or fear the wrath of people complaining about the mod in question not responding to him).



It is time consuming, but whoever took the job of modding that place should realize the scope of what they are dealing with. Banning or deleting every single post for flaming or spamming, regardless of the varying degrees between said posts, isn't a good option in my humble opinion.




> On top of that reading the reports itself is time consuming in itself therefore it is an inadequate solution to the issue of taking too much time and effort to deal with.




I'm not sure how the report system works.
However, I do think that us posters in the library should help the mods out a bit by pointing out the people or topics derailing a thread. I suppose I'll start pointing out flame threads/posts to help the mods out slightly. 

It's the least I can do

:sanji


----------



## Chainer (Feb 21, 2012)

Just to clarify the report function:

You click the button.
You type in your reason for reporting.
Your report is made into a thread in a sub-section of the HR. Any listed moderators of the section are e-mailed to notify them of the report thread.
We read it.
We take action (if necessary).


----------



## Baroxio (Feb 21, 2012)

I think the best thing we can do is have a stickied "Forum Rules & Regulations" section, if we don't have one already, that clearly outlines what will and won't get you banned, as well as what will or won't give you a warning.

A more transparent rule system will not only help the mods out by making their jobs easier, but will also help avoid issues like this thread coming up.

Speaking of which, it wouldn't be a really bad idea to have the rules decided on by majority, or at least some sort of representative democratic system that takes the will of the people into account.

But I don't know much about forums and modships, so take what I say with a grain of salt.


----------



## Seph (Feb 21, 2012)

> Speaking of which, it wouldn't be a really bad idea to have the rules decided on by majority, or at least some sort of representative democratic system that takes the will of the people into account.



I think this is very risky and could potentially backfire. I don't see this being more than a popularity contest. It's just how people on this forum are.


----------



## αce (Feb 21, 2012)

Thanks Chainer.

People shouldn't abuse that button either, considering it takes time away from actually modding the section, as they have to read through complaints.

I would recommend making a sticky thread in the library where people can point out whether or not a mod missed flaming or trolling, or pointing out something in a thread that is derailing the topic so they can help them figure out how to deal with the situation.

Mods miss stuff sometimes. The posters who actually want to help can do so if you allow us too.


----------



## Vegeta (Feb 21, 2012)

I agree with the troglodyte. We should be able to flame whoever we want.


----------



## Chainer (Feb 21, 2012)

♠Ace♠ said:


> Thanks Chainer.
> 
> People shouldn't abuse that button either, considering it takes time away from actually modding the section, as they have to read through complaints.
> 
> ...



The problem I see with your suggestion is that it takes away the anonymity. The report function exists so that whomever does the reporting isn't targeted by the reportee.


----------



## eyeknockout (Feb 21, 2012)

Yes I agree, the konoha library and Battledome are easily the 2 least tolerant places on the entire forum. Great Members are getting banned for sticking up for their favorite characters. 

The thing is, Moderators are just like regular members except they have more power, they have favorite charcters too, just like if you dehype a fan favorite, they will turn on you, the mods are the same. Sure they don't ban instantly for things like that, but it is always taken into consideration.

Many topics that I like are treated like trash (litterally sent to konoha landfill) even though they are better than most people's threads? 

Most annoying moment was when Grimmjowsensei, Nikushimi and strategos got banned all at the same time for defending a character, and yet the opposers were just let free.

I don't make topics anymore because I put so much effort into them and many still get banned so quickly. 

I hold no grudges against any of the mods of the forums, but the system is corrupt. I would throw it on the ground, I ain't part of this system. 

P.S. Your edits were easily some of my favorites, it's saddening that you can't do them anymore, I always looked forward to them.


----------



## Chainer (Feb 21, 2012)

The only thing that the Naruto Battledome is absolutely intolerant of are the one-liners.

Otherwise, I can safely say that we are pretty damn lenient . . . especially compared to how we used to be.


----------



## αce (Feb 21, 2012)

> The problem I see with your suggestion is that it takes away the anonymity. The report function exists so that whomever does the reporting isn't targeted by the reportee.



Well, I would differentiate between the two things. The report function seems to be more personal. If someone wants to remain anonymous, they can do so by using the report function without being criticized by the person they are reporting.

However, if they don't care about anonymity (which I suspect a lot of people don't), they can just post in that thread. I'm not sure how full that subsection is, or how often it gets updated, but I'm assuming a thread full of posters telling a mod to deal with a situation would be much faster. Also, it allows for third parties to recommend on how to deal with a certain situation, rather than just the two people involved in an argument.

Multiple 3rd parties reporting one post/person would probably get annoying to go over. Especially if reporting is a frequent occurrence.




> The only thing that the Naruto Battledome is absolutely intolerant of are the one-liners.
> 
> Otherwise, I can safely say that we are pretty damn lenient . . . especially compared to how we used to be



I tend to post more in the Library, so I wouldn't know to be honest.


----------



## Chainer (Feb 21, 2012)

♠Ace♠ said:


> Well, I would differentiate between the two things. The report function seems to be more personal. If someone wants to remain anonymous, they can do so by using the report function without being criticized by the person they are reporting.
> 
> However, if they don't care about anonymity (which I suspect a lot of people don't), they can just post in that thread. I'm not sure how full that subsection is, or how often it gets updated, but I'm assuming a thread full of posters telling a mod to deal with a situation would be much faster. Also, it allows for third parties to recommend on how to deal with a certain situation, rather than just the two people involved in an argument.
> 
> Multiple 3rd parties reporting one post/person would probably get annoying to go over. Especially if reporting is a frequent occurrence.



It is possible, but I can see it becoming an avenue for abuse.


----------



## T-Bag (Feb 21, 2012)

eyeknockout said:


> Most annoying moment was when Grimmjowsensei, Nikushimi and strategos got banned all at the same time for defending a character, and yet the opposers were just let free.



cause they're uchiha fans. bet if they were minato/naruto/jiraiya fans doing the same thing as these guys, they wouldn't have gotten a complaint, let alone a ban.


----------



## Seph (Feb 21, 2012)

T-Bag said:


> cause they're uchiha fans. bet if they were minato/naruto/jiraiya fans doing the same thing as these guys, they wouldn't have gotten a complaint, let alone a ban.



This might seem kind of, well, stupid to you guys at first glance, but he speaks the truth.

Turrin makes a bunch of Minato / Jiraiya / Naruto wank threads and NOTHING ever happens to him. Mods don't do anything to stop him at all, he just goes on and on.


----------



## Chainer (Feb 21, 2012)

We're kind of deviating, here.


----------



## αce (Feb 21, 2012)

Niku, Strategos and Grimmjowsensei get banned often.
In fact, I'm fairly sure Strategos is banned right now. 


*On Topic:* In regards to flaming, I've hardly seen anything worth banning someone over in a while. Unless someone get's personally offended, as I tend to not care what people say about myself. Some others may have a different mind set.

There comes a point though when a thread get's taken over by 2 or 3 individuals, and they should just VM or PM eachother.

It usually happens in a Minato/Itachi thread with Turrin and someone else.


----------



## Seph (Feb 21, 2012)

Chainer said:


> We're kind of deviating, here.



No. Everything is related.

Reporting is related to flaming.
Some flamebaits get away (Naruto/Minato/Jiraiya) while others don't (Uchiha).

This thread is about the entire system; so as long as everyone stays within this topic, then there's no problem at all.

I'd appreciate if people didn't focus on one specific event, though.


----------



## Chainer (Feb 21, 2012)

Seph said:


> No. Everything is related.
> 
> Reporting is related to flaming.
> Some flamebaits get away (Naruto/Minato/Jiraiya) while others don't (Uchiha).
> ...



That's what I was referring to.


----------



## Vegeta (Feb 21, 2012)

LMFAO


----------



## Ryuzaki (Feb 21, 2012)

Great thread, clearly this has been a developing issue for quite some time actually considering the amount of members that are actually troubled by this. A great deal of people have complained about this on numerous occasions but generally have either gotten banned before something could be done or the staff just dismissed their claim. So let me take a crack at this:

In all honesty, it's a difficult situation for the moderators as well as the regular members, but perhaps they could tone it down too. I find that some mods are as eccentric as some of the people they seem to be reprimanding, if not more so. Another thing I find that's really annoying is that some moderators tend to develop a bias against certain member(s) and abuse their privileges to single that individual out.

What happened to infractions? I liked that system better. It not only kept a public record for things that happened, but it also kept a balance (e.g. from moderators abusing their powers and from members abusing leeway given by mods - warnings & etc.). Perhaps setting up an infraction system for each cause/consequence and point that out as a separate "Announcement" in all the forums would be a way of communicating this better.

I don't mind writing up the ground work (assuming it's extensive and detailed), if we (moderators and regular members) are able to reach a peaceful resolution to this. I'm not new to moderating and I have ran several forums (larger communities than this one on multiple occasions) and this seems to be a better method in the long run than the standard "let the mod" deal with everything.

As for offensive language, I think as long as it doesn't involve the standard swears or outright flaming/flame-baiting, members should just deal with it. This isn't middle school where we need to be reprimanded for every little thing that happens. If you feel a certain user is going out of their way to harass you (e.g. user note, visitor message, consistent pm'ing), that's a separate issue but that shouldn't be the case 9 times out of 10.

In your case, Seph, I really feel for you on the whole point out the spelling thing, but perhaps you didn't need to make a separate thread solely to point that out. It could've been done the next time a discussion came up between you and Turrin, worst case, it would've passed unnoticed. As for Mali, I wasn't there and I didn't see the thread but if that really happened, then it wasn't really a good call for the moderator to make. 

"Nitwit" is synonymous with "not the sharpest x in the group" and members complaining about such an obvious lack thereof an atrocity is one of the most abysmal portrayals of their character. The average age of the member around here is between the group of 17-26, are you really going to sit there and tell me you cried a river because someone called you a nitwit? Live your age. I feel if we have to censor ourselves so much, then the response just wouldn't be genuine. 

Furthermore, I believe the prerequisite qualities for moderators should be re-evaluated, moderators should be generally, those people who are tolerant and have greater than normal patience, as this is a large community, someone with a short-fuse would just ban people for remedial stuff (e.g. T-Bag's post above). Especially, when you mix that with a begrudging-like personality, you end up having a recipe for disaster.

Lastly, both members and moderators need to recognize that this is a forum, at the end of a day it's just a community where people interact with one another and we're all here because of our single common interest (Naruto). Discussions over controversial topics *will* (not "may") get out of hand and expecting people to respond in a proper manner in a heated debate is diametrically opposed to our nature, some leeway should be given there, if a need to reprimand arises. 

If and when I think of other things, I will post here.


----------



## ShiggyDiggyDoo (Feb 21, 2012)

I agree that flaming should be more tolerated...

Real life isn't hunky dory. Even my teachers have flamed fellow students before. Now, if the flaming was something excessive which is getting much too personal to the point of causing distress, then I think it'd be the perfect time for the staff to put their foot down.


----------



## Leuconoe (Feb 21, 2012)

I agree that taking little jabs at others isn't something to be banned for. I'm a big girl, I don't take the Internet seriously or intertwine it with my self-esteem, so if someone takes a jab at me for whatever reason to get their point across, by all means. This however, doesn't mean that there's no such thing as going _over the top_ like everyone said. If people can get banned for a flaming topic, it seems even more fair for flaming _others. _ Get passionate if one wants, sure, but don't say you'll come into my house and eat my family just because I didn't think Itachi/Minato/Sakura looked HAWT in chapter when-the-hell. 

I agree, some of the locking and banning is over the top. I'm not saying mods aren't allowed to have feelings or make mistakes because at the end of the day, they're human. Some with very awesome sets (*cough*Stuff with Naruko*cough* ) and I appreciate what they do. I sure as hell wouldn't want to. Too hard.

Maybe having more mods would be a good idea. Not like I'm saying "all mods suck," but it can be tiring having to deal with the same shit from people over and over again. Almost to the point where it can be downright _babysitting._ And it'll be easier for them, and lighter punishment would be easier for us. The ratio just needs a better balance.


----------



## T-Bag (Feb 21, 2012)

if you see people like nikushimi, and klue getting banned (who are so subtle) for this shit, that's how you know this form has a problem.


----------



## Chainer (Feb 21, 2012)

I remember using the infraction system when I first became a mod. They tended to piss people off more than sending them a PM, as I recall.


----------



## eyeknockout (Feb 21, 2012)

To be honest, I don't really find much to be flamebait. Unless someone takes a personal crack at my family or something I don't get mad. 

That is why I have a hard time understanding why members are even getting banned, imo if it's an opinion then it should slide. derogatory language should be dealt with too, but anything along the lines of "you're stupid" or "does that booster seat come with a juice holder" shouldn't be addressed unless it is very constant and not backed up by evidence.

But then again as I said, I may be biased since not much really disturbs me. The members who always went against me and made fun of me made the time I spent on NF better because I lived to just bother them back (of course by giving proper facts and panels).

anyway back on full topic: Because we have such a small amount of moderators, they each take the responsibilty onto themselves to delete posts and threads that could cause wars since they know they will be the ones cleaning up everything. If more mods were hired, the Mods could be more risky in allowing things to pass since they know all the responsibilty doesn't only rest in their hands.


----------



## αce (Feb 21, 2012)

Can someone tell me what the infraction system was?


----------



## Chainer (Feb 21, 2012)

♠Ace♠ said:


> Can someone tell me what the infraction system was?



You post something naughty.
We see it.
We click 'Add infraction for User.'
We enter in the reason, the duration, and the point value (not that the last one made any fucking difference . . .)
You get a PM and a very _permanent_ note in your control panel.
We then edit the post as necessary, or what have you.

I still have two infractions myself, though they're jokes.


----------



## Ryuzaki (Feb 21, 2012)

Chainer said:


> I remember using the infraction system when I first became a mod. They tended to piss people off more than sending them a PM, as I recall.



Perhaps, establishing that system solely for the Konoha Library/Naruto Battledome is what would make it more useful. It seems most of the people here are complaining about being banned via Naruto Battledome or Konoha Library.

I remember it annoyed people but only because it was easily viewed by anyone in the profile. Members should have the ability to restrict it via their User CP, if the option was activated via Admin Panel for their specific usergroup.


----------



## Chainer (Feb 21, 2012)

Ryuzaki said:


> Perhaps, establishing that system solely for the Konoha Library/Naruto Battledome is what would make it more useful. It seems most of the people here are complaining about being banned via N.B.D. or K.L.
> 
> I remember it annoyed people but only because it was easily viewed by anyone. Members should have the ability to restrict it via their User CP, if the option was activated via Admin Panel for their specific usergroup.



I would never adapt that system to the Naruto Battledome. The rules there are simple, and I am far more lenient than I ever was when I started. It takes a _lot_ to get your posting privileges removed there. Even more to have me ban you forum-wide . . . which is something I haven't done in ages to an NBD poster.

It was only ever visible to the user and moderators.


----------



## Chainer (Feb 21, 2012)

So, back to the nitty-gritty: basically what you're all asking for is additional moderators and more leniency?


----------



## Mider T (Feb 21, 2012)

Thread doesn't answer the problem of their being one active mod in the Library.


----------



## Seph (Feb 21, 2012)

Chainer said:


> So, back to the nitty-gritty: basically what you're all asking for is additional moderators and more leniency?



1. Much more leniency
2. Encouragement of heated discussions
3. Additional moderators
4. Reversal of all bans done by the current mods, if all these changes take place



> Thread doesn't answer the problem of their being one active mod in the Library.



Read the previous posts before posting.


----------



## Chainer (Feb 21, 2012)

I'll bring it up with the rest of staff.

I am not making any guarantees, however.


----------



## Seph (Feb 21, 2012)

Chainer said:


> I'll bring it up with the rest of staff.
> 
> I am not making any guarantees, however.



Okay, but don't close this thread just because you'll bring it up.

There are plenty of rational people here who want to share their thoughts.


----------



## Chainer (Feb 21, 2012)

Seph said:


> Okay, but don't close this thread just because you'll bring it up.
> 
> There are plenty of rational people here who want to share their thoughts.



If that was my intention, I would have already done it. 

Calm yourself.


----------



## Seph (Feb 21, 2012)

Chainer said:


> If that was my intention, I would have already done it.
> 
> Calm yourself.



I'm perfectly calm. I don't know where you got the idea that I was agitated in any way.


----------



## Ryuzaki (Feb 21, 2012)

Chainer said:


> I would never adapt that system to the Naruto Battledome. The rules there are simple, and I am far more lenient than I ever was when I started. It takes a _lot_ to get your posting privileges removed there. Even more to have me ban you forum-wide . . . which is something I haven't done in ages to an NBD poster.
> 
> It was only ever visible to the user and moderators.


Hmm, I see.

I know that you guys are trying your best, and I appreciate at that, but I'm not sure people deserved to get banned solely for using "nitwit" - it maybe offensive but who are we kidding here? Were they really offended by that or are they just manipulating the system to get back at the poster?

I forgot to mention one thing that really bothers posters (and I'm not singly you out or anything, just as a general observation), is when you guys edit our posts w/o us knowing. Granted we get caught up in the middle of a serious discussion), but if you send us a PM to edit our post, I'm sure most of us would probably edit it, I know I would.

Prior to this September, I haven't really been active since when I joined NF (back in Summer of '08) and truthfully, I remember getting PM's about editing my posts. I thought it was nice of them to do that.

Thanks for hearing us out.


----------



## Chainer (Feb 21, 2012)

Ryuzaki said:


> Hmm, I see.
> 
> I know that you guys are trying your best, and I appreciate at that, but I'm not sure people deserved to get banned solely for using "nitwit" - it maybe offensive but who are we kidding here? Were they really offended by that or are they just manipulating the system to get back at the poster?



I can't speak for the people who report the posts, but some people take things very literally on this site.



> I forgot to mention one thing that really bothers posters (and I'm not singly you out or anything, just as a general observation), is when you guys edit our posts w/o us knowing. Granted we get caught up in the middle of a serious discussion), but if you send us a PM to edit our post, I'm sure most of us would probably edit it, I know I would.



I've been trying, recently, to get into the habit of alerting people when I take any action against them. I do apologize, because I know I miss more than my fair share. Sending a PM for every mod action, especially at my level, is downright frightening. So I've taken to posting warnings in the threads themselves, more often than not.



> Prior to this September, I haven't really been active since when I joined NF (back in Summer of '08) and truthfully, I remember getting PM's about editing my posts. I thought it was nice of them to do that.
> 
> Thanks for hearing us out.



It's possible - I didn't become a mod until early '09.

That's what I'm here for.


----------



## Leuconoe (Feb 21, 2012)

Chainer said:


> So, back to the nitty-gritty: basically what you're all asking for is additional moderators and more leniency?



Yush. Quite frankly, I hate how overloaded you guys are. And more leniency would be fine too.


----------



## Chainer (Feb 21, 2012)

KingHenryVIII said:


> Yush. Quite frankly, I hate how overloaded you guys are. And more leniency would be fine too.



You and I both.


----------



## dream (Feb 21, 2012)

> I know that you guys are trying your best, and I appreciate at that, but I'm not sure people deserved to get banned solely for using "nitwit" - it maybe offensive but who are we kidding here? Were they really offended by that or are they just manipulating the system to get back at the poster?



There was more to that ban than just the user saying nitwit.

I'll quote Naruko on the issue.



Naruko said:


> Naruto - if a section is told "btw, flaming and personal insults will not be tolerated, make your point without resorting to that" and someone immediately responds to that by calling someone a "nitwit", right in the face of that warning, they might get a very brief ban. Doing something self-destructive in the face of a warning is just that...self-destructive. There is nothing in the forum rules that says we have grades of flame, that certain levels of flame receive certain levels of punishment. You flame, you might get banned. If you have a history and you keep doing it, even if it's seemingly not that bad of a word, you're proving incorrigible and thinking you're above the rules. You do it right after a mod tells you not to flame, you just try to make a mockery of everything. That isn't kindergarten logic, that's a mod doing his job even though he might get heat from people because they don't like being told they can't treat the forums like 4chan.


----------



## Seph (Feb 21, 2012)

Oh, I just want to mention that I'm confrontational in nature (especially in debates) so don't take it personally and think I'm angry. I'm not.



> I know that you guys are trying your best, and I appreciate at that, but I'm not sure people deserved to get banned solely for using "nitwit" - it maybe offensive but who are we kidding here? Were they really offended by that or are they just manipulating the system to get back at the poster?



In that specific situation, Mali got banned for 2 weeks iirc.



> I forgot to mention one thing that really bothers posters (and I'm not singly you out or anything, just as a general observation), is when you guys edit our posts w/o us knowing. Granted we get caught up in the middle of a serious discussion), but if you send us a PM to edit our post, I'm sure most of us would probably edit it, I know I would.



Thanks for bringing this up. This is a very valid point.

Imagine someone copyediting your writing, adding in their own things into it. How can that be considered your own writing if it's edited?


----------



## Chainer (Feb 21, 2012)

Eternal Goob's post holds a lot of truth to it.

It wouldn't let me quote it, so I apologize.

As for your post, Seph . . . we always try to leave the overall subject matter of the post intact, when we can.


----------



## Mider T (Feb 21, 2012)

Seph said:


> Read the previous posts before posting.



If I didn't read, how would I know that the problem was already brought up.

Calm down.


----------



## Bender (Feb 21, 2012)

Look: Just behave and try not to address your fellow forum members in a condescending tone no matter the circumstance.


----------



## Gunners (Feb 21, 2012)

> There are plenty of mature people on this forum who want to contribute to make this forum a better place. Even on the KL. Kenneth is a pretty cool guy, for example.
> 
> I think that harmony should be completely destroyed and rebuilt with new staff members, because these staff members clearly take it too far.


An overhaul on staff members would not change a thing. I'm starting to realise that I have been here too long but the gist of things is the new mod on the block starts off adored by the masses. Then they have to start balancing the competing interest of various posters, inevitably the person short changed ends up complaining. Then they start to realise that it is feasibly impossible to take a lax approach with controlling the relevant section so take a stricter approach with maintaining order. 

When the strict approach is taken the adored mods become well the mods you're complaining about. 


> We could have moderators who solely read these reports rather than do the closing and infracting and requesting bans and such. Mini-moderators, maybe.
> 
> There are so many possible solutions; acting like the moral police is not one of them.


This doesn't diminish the work involved as the next step for them would be reporting the reports to someone who can delete/close posts/thread which isn't more difficult that deleting the post themselves and creates a time lag as cleaning up a thread would be dependent on two mods with different roles being active at the same time.


----------



## Xerces (Feb 21, 2012)

Bender said:


> Look: Just behave and try not to address your fellow forum members in a condescending tone no matter the circumstance.



This is what a majority of the members do, but they still get banned. The mods are trying to act like the moral police, when in reality they should be making sure nobody posts any explicit insults or harmful images. 

If somebody is passionate about something, and wants to have a heated debate on something, I don't see the problem with doing so as long as its civil. The mods shouldn't act like kindergarden teachers and baby its members every time somebody is offended by another persons views on something. 

After all, lets not lose sight of what this place is: *A forum*. A forum is a place where people can get together and share their views on things. Ofcourse, not everybody is going to agree with eachother, but that shouldn't be reason for the staff to intervene.

The mods need to seriously re-think the way they are enforcing the 'rules'.


----------



## dream (Feb 22, 2012)

I'm not really a Library regular and usually only post when there is a new chapter so please forgive me for any ignorance that I might have.



			
				Seph said:
			
		

> It's a well known fact that, in the Konoha Library, it doesn't matter if a topic doesn't have any flaming at all; if a topic has the mere potential to cause any heated discussion, then it's instantly going to be closed.



Is this really a problem?  I've checked about twenty pages in the Library right now and I haven't seen too many threads closed because of potential heated discussion.  The only only that really comes to mind was one about Kushina and how she was the worst Bijuu host, the reason given was that it was baiting.   

The landfill didn't have too many threads closed because of potential heated discussion either though I only viewed a few threads in that section.  I mostly see threads closed for being in the wrong section, pairing threads and character debate threads being prominent examples, or being basically copies of other recent threads.  

If you have some examples of threads closed because of heated discussion then I would appreciate it if you could post them.



> Why shouldn't we give people the opportunity to defend them as long as it doesn't harm anyone?



Aren't we already given the opportunity to have heated debates?  I've seen a few in the Konoha Library.  Of course my definition of a heated debate could be different from your definition.  



> They don't decide what's right and wrong



Actually, they do decide what is right and wrong, on this forum, and we all agreed to follow the rules.  



> How can people enjoy themselves if they can't get passionate about the things they want to talk about?



People don't have to become passionate about something to enjoy themselves.  I rarely ever am passionate about something and I still manage to have a lot of fun.


----------



## BlazingCobaltX (Feb 22, 2012)

Although I haven't been in touch with a mod myself so far, I have seen others get banned for things that couldn't even be called an insult. According to Naruko's quote; there are no specific levels of flaming, but there should be, I don't think it makes sense to get banned for a week only for correcting someone's spelling.


----------



## Naruko (Feb 22, 2012)

Seph said:


> *Solutions:*
> 
> 1. Hire more moderators, the KL currently only has one active moderator which is just plain ridiculous.
> 2. Encourage use of the report function to the community; you can offer people who use the report function often the chance to become a candidate for a moderator or something.
> ...



1. Hire implies we are paid for this. We are not. And one active moderator my tush. We have several active mods in the section. DN, Sai and I review the section daily and check reports regularly. Those + Hexa do the same for the Telegrams section. If it's a report, we have other smods that back up and can and do cover those as well if they get their first (Chainer, Distracted). Coverage is not an issue.
2. Couldn't agree more. Fortunately our community is quite helpful with reporting issues that are problems or have the potential to become problems. If you feel you are being singled out in actions, be aware it reflects the word of the community as well as the mods. We do not act on a report solely because it is reported; but if something is reported and we concur there is an issue, we act. And without the community we couldn't come close to seeing all the stuff that gets dealt with.

As for "low tolerance" on flaming or things that can lead to flaming...yes, NA sections have a low tolerance for flaming. In fact no tolerance for flaming. The forums rules you agree to when you accept your account also state flaming is not permitted in the forums. By taking your account you agree to follow those rules. 

Now, we do have some sections that are a safety-valve of sorts. Anti- and Pro- FCs will allow you to vent (or celebrate) various characters, pairings, techniques or events long after the general population are tired of hearing about it. Go to town. Don't bash other members and otherwise you're generally fine. The Blender is pretty much anything goes except porn or something really vicious or creepy vs. another member. You enter at your own risk. Want to flame? Go there, have at it. Be my guest. Can't promise you won't get backlash or if it's overdone there might not be some form of repercussion (generally from other posters) but that's the place to go if you want to let your hair down.

The Konoha Library exists to discuss the manga. If you flame, mock or berate another poster, yes you will be censured. If you don't like that, go to another forum. You took an account here saying you agreed to our rules and that's what the rules are. That's what they have been for longer than I have been a member, even. It is not new. If you post a topic that has been done to death, yes it will probably be closed. It's not just the staff; the community doesn't want to see another Jiraiya vs. Itachi thread. If you post a thread about how Sasuke/Naruto is awesome and Naruto/Sasuke fans that don't see this are intellectually barren, yes, it will be closed. This should be no surprise. 

You always have the option to go to another forum. While I know you would like to change the rules of this forum to accommodate your post-style and think mods might be biased or power-abusing or out to get you, again be aware we largely respond to what the community brings to our attention. And by community I don't mean just one user with an axe to grind against you - we are aware that relationships like that exist here and keep that in mind when reviewing things. 

In short, we aren't rewriting the rules to accommodate people that want to troll or bait in the section and get away with it. Don't think we're (both members and staff) blind to conversations you have in VMs with people (or comments in reps) between users when folks celebrate having successfully trolled a fandom or section. Don't think you can post things like that and then come in here and calmly say all staff are biased and must be taken down to allow you to do whatever you want. 

If you are truly unhappy with the forums here, feel free to find another one to post in. In my experience people stay here or keep coming back because we are actually quite lax compared to many. But we still have our rules and staff make the best judgment calls keeping all parties in mind that they can and you can ask why a call was made and we can explain it....but the rules aren't going to change.

edit: @Blazing and Seph re: the "spelling correction ban" - we never have banned JUST for correcting someones spelling. Ever. Now, if you have a history of flaming and or baiting and prior bans for same and you stop to make a post that is off topic and exists SOLELY to _mock_ someones spelling, implying they are mentally deficient for making that misspelling and/or that all their arguments are suddenly invalid because of said spelling error....guess what. You didn't get banned for correcting their spelling. You got banned for trolling, posting off topic and flamebaiting. So stop bringing that up out of context. I know you would like to represent yourself as a beleaguered innocent, beset by horrible and intolerant mods, but we are never that petty or frivolous...there is always a history behind a ban and we are happy to spell it out. I just prefer to do so privately but since you keep bringing that particular event up, I decided to try and clear things up on our ban policies.


----------



## mali (Feb 22, 2012)

Its all good in the hood really.

As long as mods arent diplomaticaly immune to getting punished, Im cool.


----------



## Whirlpool (Feb 22, 2012)

I can't believe this, it's not that big a deal. Sephs threads are always just a joke, and hilarious ones at that. Just because some fans of the character he trolled get butthurt and begin complaining doesn't mean he should be banned from posting threads.


----------



## The Great Oneddd (Feb 22, 2012)

Ya know I have had no interaction with staff here and I must say I have no clue as to what is going on.  However I can say I came from a place where the staff were not the greatest and if the staff here are really trying then things will improve and we will all see it.  Everyone should just give it a little time and at least stop using the term "nit whit"if that is what is getting people banned. You never know maybe that might be one of the things that get changed and be allowed.

Sorry if I am over stepping my bounds here since I am new and all to this.


----------



## Naruko (Feb 22, 2012)

The Great One said:


> Ya know I have had no interaction with staff here and I must say I have no clue as to what is going on.  However I can say I came from a place where the staff were not the greatest and if the staff here are really trying then things will improve and we will all see it.  Everyone should just give it a little time and at least stop using the term "nit whit"if that is what is getting people banned. You never know maybe that might be one of the things that get changed and be allowed.
> 
> Sorry if I am over stepping my bounds here since I am new and all to this.



If anyone gives you shit for posting your opinion because you're new, let me know. 

No, seriously, anyone that is a member of the community should feel welcome to post their opinion without blowback (and hey, that's something we sometimes have to warn or censure for - older posters hazing newer posters as if they haven't earned the "right" to post input...not cool). 

You summarize something quite neatly that covers what people in any forum need to know to survive - if "xyz" word gets you banned, don't use it. Not that hard. 

And while I know a lot of people are saying they want flame to be permitted, again, we have sections for that and in the largest, busiest sections, flame is hurtful to many people which risks (each time it occurs) a thread being derailed by two or more users flaming each other (and then friends joining in). That more than anything is why it is discouraged in busy debate sections. People came to debate a thread topic and if it has devolved to "you are stupid" "no you" then we're off topic, it's embarrassing to watch or at least tiresome. You want to flame, take it to PMs or the Blender (at your own risk). If you take it to PMs and get reported, hey that's the risks of it. Safer to make your point without flaming. A good argument doesn't need insults to stick...in fact the moment you lob an insult, you lost your cool AND your argument.

You few want to flame in your debates...take it to the Blender or another forum (or 4chan) and have at it.


----------



## Distracted (Feb 22, 2012)

1.  There is only 1 mod listed in the Konoha Library, but that does not mean that there is only one mod that is active in the Konoha Library.  Super Moderators generally avoid being listed in sections, the KL has a lot of super mods that dote on it.

2.  "Heated Discussions" seems to me to be a generalized term that tries to white wash an issue.  We don't just delete heated discussions just cause they're heated.  We lock/merge them when they have flames, will lead to flames or have people present in them that will only flame in them.  Every post is a repost, mods tend to get good at recognizing the patterns.

3.  "Light jabbing" is the same thing here.  One man's "light jabbing" is another mans flame.  Now, obviously we don't want to baby one person too much just because they're overly sensitive.  I know people are going to come in here screaming naming that one time they just said some 'innocent' remark to some 'butthurt' person or something.  There is a lot of context to that and I don't want to have to dig through your entire history to find that one incident and explain it to you.

Generally speaking, we try to understand relationships and friendships.  However, even if it's between two friends, if they start saying things that would appear to be overtly hostile - - even if both of them accept it as friendly banter - - we will probably hand out a warning or a ban.

3. "*Nitwit Gate*"  I love how everyone brings this up.  The mod just made a thread telling people not to flame, and the user called a mod a nitwit.  Then people scream "Oh no, a 2 week ban for nitwit! how silly and petty!" the user has a pretty long history.  We scale up bans based on your previous activity, the user could have received more than 2 weeks because of their history.

We can discuss what is and isn't harsh, but let's not throw out all context for every example here.

4. *The Naruto Battledome is harsh*  my ass!  That place hasn't had an iron fisted dictator since I was the main mod with a green name.  It may be a bit more formal in how it handles posts, but that's the only time the mods are heavy handed and I can't remember a time we handed out a punishment to someone for that.  It's like when people make multiple posts in a row, we'll merge the posts and leave a warning, but I can't remember a time someone was actually banned for that.

If you think that place is harsh you must have run into me back in my old days.

*Expand on these issues and we can have a more informed and serious discussion on them.*

Now on to the one point  I saw that seems fully formed and legitimate.  Maybe the Konoha Library does need an increase in mod activity.  We'll be discussing this as a staff and I'll also see what I can do to help out in there a bit more, but my activity is reduced and has taken a hit due to off forum issues.

The problem with any sort of mod promotion is that there is no time table and we take into consideration far more than just how the community will view the new moderator.


----------



## Naruko (Feb 22, 2012)

1. there are five mods listed in the KL. Some are section mods, some are super mods, one advisor and 1 admin. But if a staff member (after retiring from active to advisor or being promoted from section to something else) keeps their name in that section, that means they consider themselves an active mod for that section and you can and should approach them with questions or concerns.

2. see 1.

PS - re: more mods. The only time more mods are needed is if reports don't get handled or issues addressed. KL are pretty good about checking reports and replying to VMs, PMs, SCR and Court threads (and this) when people have issues about stuff. Considering the KL is the second biggest forum section, that rocks. Throwing more mods at the section who will be expected to enforce the same section and forum rules won't make your life any easier if you want to flame.

I think what you're asking for are "more mods that allow flaming". That won't happen.


----------



## Addy (Feb 22, 2012)

Chainer said:


> Just to clarify the report function:
> 
> You click the button.
> You type in your reason for reporting.
> ...



yes, pointing out Turrin's spelling mistakes is a crime that must punished


----------



## Ghost (Feb 22, 2012)

Wow, 5 day ban from calling "nitwit" and "not the sharpest pencil in the pencil box" ? I think we all are at the age where "insults" like that should be easily ignored and forgotten. I understand if it starts getting like what happens in YouTube. Those who browse through YouTube a lot should know what kind of stupid insults people throw at each other. 

About Seph's edit threads. I find those absolutely hilarious like I believe most of the people who read them do. How can anyone get offended even if his/her favorite character get mocked a little? That shouldn't affect you in any way. Also if you are not a fan of Seph's edit threads, don't read them. We all have general idea what it's going to contain.

Also if it starts to get carried away in the Battledome, take it to PM or VM.

About moderator things, I don't really know what to say. I've been active in this forum for like 3 months and I'm still kinda new. But getting banned from such a little things is kinda silly. 

Banning Seph's edit threads is ridiculous and the mods should know it. Just my thoughts.


----------



## butcher50 (Feb 22, 2012)

Chainer said:


> So, back to the nitty-gritty: basically what you're all asking for is additional moderators and more leniency?



there used to be a great poster named "Hawkman", what have you done with him ?


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Feb 22, 2012)

Couple that lack of tolerance with the ego of a moderator(which I believe the majority lacks the objectivity to carry out their duties), and you'll face injustice.
But the only problem isn't the mods themselves, because you can't strip a human being from their ego, or expect them to be completely objective. Unless they are machines, there is always room for error. 
It is easy to overcome this though, by simply reducing the level of authority and power they have. For example, user banning or thread closing should be up to the decision of a council, where these things are deeply discussed. An anynomous voting system perhaps ? 

Give a humanbeing some power, and see it get abused. So yeah, that is the first thing that needs to be handled.

Permbaning someone from posting threads is as extreme as it can get. And there are alot of people who need to be permed for shitty threads, before it comes to Seph. It is injustice @ its finest.
I am pretty sure it wasn't given much thought.

I'll elaborate later when I have the time.


edit : 

I also got banned recently. The reason they have given me was that I was baiting someone. 

Where in reality, it was just the opposite.

Some member copy pasta my neg comment I left him, trying to mock me, which ofcourse had nothing to do with the BD thread we were posting in.
And as a response, I said "I am glad that neg hurt you so much "
Which was the truth, given if he didn't care for it, he wouldn't bring it up out of nowhere.

Anyways, this got me banned for 2 weeks. The baiter wasn't banned as far as I know, even if he was, it was less than 2 weeks.

To me, it seemed like just an excuse to ban me(and a wrong excuse @ that, given I wasn't a baiting, but rather replying to a bait). 
I brought this up in Konoha court, which was, like always, ignored by the mods. 

This brings in the question, is Konoha Court even designed to work ? Because as things are now, it doesn't.


----------



## ammarz (Feb 22, 2012)

Well, I for one think the mods being quite active lately is a good thing, particularly Chainer in the Naruto Battledome. In my opinion, letting go quite childish behaviour (not talking about this particular situation but in general) multiple times will just encourage such behaviour and it will just expand to the rest of the community. Thus, in my opinion, the mods are right to clamp down on it.

There are limits to everything. The problem is how to define such limits. Each person has his own view on these things. One person's definition of a little flaming might not be shared by the other party. Hence, in a particular scenario, a mods judgment may differ from many of the forum members. In my personal opinion, mods used to let too much go. I don't know about other sections but I support Chainer's recent clamp down on a little 'out there' behaviour in the Naruto Battledome. One can have a heated discussion, but still can remain within limits.

About the particular discussion on-topic, I don't have all the relevant information as the mods do to make a definite judgment. However, in my opinion, Seph's edit threads do have a strong element of spite in them and according to my knowledge spite threads are banned. Thus, I can understand the mods banning them permanently.


----------



## Csdabest (Feb 22, 2012)

Yeah i am going to say sometimes the Bans are unnessary. And need to be checked upon. Especially the permaban ones. I will say alot are justified because some members are disrespectful and just screaming for a serious issue. But Honestly havent come across any post from Seph that would need a perma ban


----------



## Bender (Feb 22, 2012)

Xerces said:


> This is what a majority of the members do, but they still get banned. The mods are trying to act like the moral police, when in reality they should be making sure nobody posts any explicit insults or harmful images.



I find that truly hard to believe. Whenever someone has a differing opinion than the other they can't get past a page without insulting or things turning hostile. Hell, I remember a couple times of you being one of those people. 

EDIT:
You guys ever hear of the saying "violence begets more violence" well insults is the same way. If you're going to needle someone with an insult such as "nitwit" or using a saying "you're certainly not the brightest color in the crayon box" or "sharpest knife in the box" expect backlash to be even more harsh and make the heated situation even more worse.


----------



## Grimm6Jack (Feb 22, 2012)

I got perm. Banned from the Bleach Avenue: Soul Society Battlepit just because the threads I'm in are always "heated", but I never flame, in the past before I got banned I did flame a couple of times (well, idiot, dumbass are insults that one should easily avoid though, I get called idiot a lot of times and I simply ignore). What I don't get it, is: Why always me?? And: Why only me?? There are a lot of people there who troll, spamm and even flame and they just stay there .

But I have to say that the staff here is a bit lazy. I asked like 7 mods/smods/admins why I was perm. Banned from that section and no one has responded and this was like 1 month ago... I mean, at least one could reply or two but none?
I gess I was just banned because the threads I'm in are said to be "shitstorms", problem is: I'm not the one who creates them and I did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to deserve a perm. ban in the section where I most posted before.

And Seph, if you were really banned because of those "actions" ... . Well, it happens. Not all mods are the same you know? Some allow you to do some things that others don't. Too bad mods aren't advanced "robots" or "bots" :S.

Well since I'm in this thread, I can ask this: Y am I banned from SSBP Section from Bleach Avenue??? If the reason is "small" wich I think it is, can you unban me from there? I kinda miss talking with the trolls I find there(and only there).


----------



## lathia (Feb 22, 2012)

Let's be honest here. You guys know what stirs up drama. Just because you attempt to disguise such as an "Edit" thread or "Joke" it doesn't make it "okay." 

The tolerance of a poster diminishes as more people file complaints. You may not get banned (on the spot) for making such threads. However, you will get banned for something else that correlates with the rules. The mods are human, they get tired of seeing the same complaints about the same people.  

A solution would be to make a "Joke" section where all the instigators and jokers alike, can go to and create such threads with no bearing consequences. Sort of like the 18+ section (user group). The Library is not a place for such, and we all have been told numerous times.


----------



## Stelios (Feb 22, 2012)

I m copy pasting from the registration form rules you have clicked agree upon registration: 

*Spoiler*: __ 




By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.

The owners of Naruto Forums reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason.




Well basically you have agreed to the last line as well. That never stopped me from calling someone a "geek" or "idiot" if the majority of the thread felt the same. If I get banned well w/e after all I agreed to the owners whims when I registered.


----------



## Seph (Feb 22, 2012)

Distracted said:


> 2.  "Heated Discussions" seems to me to be a generalized term that tries to white wash an issue.  We don't just delete heated discussions just cause they're heated.  We lock/merge them when they have flames, will lead to flames or have people present in them that will only flame in them.  Every post is a repost, mods tend to get good at recognizing the patterns.



I'm just going to be blunt. You have no idea what's going on in the Library.





Locked, no flaming.



"We don't need this debate being dredged back up."

He himself says it perfectly.



> I think what you're asking for are "more mods that allow flaming". That won't happen.



Ugh, no. I'm not saying "allow flaming," I'm saying be more lenient.


----------



## Shiba D. Inu (Feb 22, 2012)

Seph's [EDIT] threads were the best thing I've seen in the naruto section of the forum - always hilarious

wtf


----------



## Frawstbite (Feb 22, 2012)

I completely understand why the disguised bashing or "wank" threads aren't always tolerated. They generate bad blood that is carried over to other threads. When you make a thread that clearly bashes another character that has a large fanbase (again, clearly) then you cannot honestly expect it to end well. The op said something like "most people take this very seriously." And if he/she believes that then naturally, it would be a bad idea to start a thread that bashes another character. Of course, "people will take it very seriously." 

I personally think being more lenient would cause more bad blood to stir up, which would get carried over through more threads. And that's not totally false, I see the same people looking for any reason to argue with the same people. Seph even admitted, he made an entire thread to _lure me out._ That is while the mods are being "strict." I'm not bothered by it, and what's done is done, but how can that not upset some people? When you put two and two together you can see it's clearly easier said than done, but you never know until you try. 

It's hard to agree with any side here, because I have seen some threads that I believe have been unreasonably or prematurely locked. If the mods are more lenient, people will find any reason to argue in other threads, given the chance.


----------



## Seph (Feb 22, 2012)

> Seph even admitted, he made an entire thread to lure me out.



Not *you* per se, I don't know where you got that idea. I was referring to people who disagreed with me in general.

I LIKE heated discussions. I find them healthy to the forum as a whole. 

Anime is a very serious topic for some people, and even more serious when it comes to the characters they're fans of and such. Why shouldn't we encourage heated discussions? This is an anime forum.


----------



## Frawstbite (Feb 22, 2012)

Seph said:


> Not *you* per se, I don't know where you got that idea. I was referring to people who disagreed with me in general.
> 
> I LIKE heated discussions. I find them healthy to the forum as a whole.
> 
> Anime is a very serious topic for some people, and even more serious when it comes to the characters they're fans of and such. Why shouldn't we encourage heated discussions? This is an anime forum.



You said I always keep you entertained and it was for your enjoyment (to make troll threads) and to keep it up. You also said I "*fell for it*." What did I fall for? You said you regularly make "troll threads" as a defense, you even posted a pic of a mod saying you were banned. 

Back then you didn't even deny it when I called you out on it. That's where I got the idea from, like anyone else would. Honestly, that thread you made would probably be a more common occurrence if the mods let up. It wasn't for a heated discussion, the image you posted completely says otherwise.

From you, and I quote. 

"You're one of the few people gullible enough to keep falling for it time and time again. Although I prefer not to call it flamebait, which it isn't, it's more like a joke."

So, by your own words, it wasn't to encourage heated discussion it was...A joke. Again, if I keep falling for these "jokes" you can shuffle through all your locked threads and see why they are locked. If you're joking that much then even the mods won't know when you're serious. That's probably where the problem comes from. How are they to tell if it is a heated discussion, of if you are simply trolling? They can't ask you each and every time.

You raise good points, but this thread might have meant more coming from someone else.


----------



## Seph (Feb 22, 2012)

> So, by your own words, it wasn't to encourage heated discussion it was...A joke.



Um, joke threads encourage heated discussion. Have you seen my threads?



> You raise good points, but this thread might have meant more coming from someone else.



It doesn't make a difference who raises these good points. Just because the person is guilty of things doesn't make his/her points any less valid.

Now why don't you try to cooperate (with the mods, or us, your pick) instead of just going off topic and changing the subject to me?

Even if you don't know which side to pick, at least weigh in your opinion instead of going off topic.


----------



## Frawstbite (Feb 22, 2012)

Seph said:


> Um, joke threads encourage heated discussion. Have you seen my threads?



I noticed you didn't tell me what I fell for, I certainly didn't fall for heated discussion, since you were never serious. 

If you wanted to have a serious discussion, you make it clear. It's not that hard. That is my point. Words like that don't encourage heated discussion. Saying that someone fell for something can only leave frustration.

Joke threads encourage bad blood before the encourage heated discussion  People think they can take you seriously, they get heated up, as you like, _only to find out that you weren't serious_. No matter how you look at it, playing with people like that will not end well.

I'm not going off topic. The idea here is to show you that _those threads don't help_. If you want to encourage heated discussion there are much better ways to go about doing it. Basically you should take action and change things just as you want the mods to do. That is my opinion on the subject. 

Thats all I am saying, and that's all I will say. I don't intend to turn this into an argument.


----------



## Kakashi Hatake (Feb 22, 2012)

I don't understand why Seph thread gets banned. They are mostly joke threads which no one takes seriously. I also noticed most Uchiha fans got banned lately at around the same time? (Grimm, Strategos, Niki, Seph etc...) 

I haven't been in KL much lately, but it wouldn't hurt if more mods like Dragonus Nesha or Chainer got hired for that section.  You guys should hire me. 

Either way, rules need to be relaxed. I mean pointing out someone spelling mistakes isn't going to hurt anyone.


----------



## Bender (Feb 22, 2012)

@Seph

Nothing about "heated discussions" is healthy for forum life. Especially, if it's going to make a fool out of fellow forumers and cause them to crack under the stress and resort to personal attacks. You do not conduct yourself that way on the Internet nor in person.


----------



## Seph (Feb 22, 2012)

Bender said:


> @Seph
> 
> Nothing about "heated discussions" is healthy for forum life. Especially, if it's going to make a fool out of fellow forumers and cause them to crack under the stress and resort to personal attacks. You do not conduct yourself that way on the Internet nor in person.



Crack under the stress? Resort to personal attacks? What? 

Look, I'm not saying we should allow flaming. I'm saying we should be more lenient.

I agree with you that we shouldn't allow personal attacks.

But we shouldn't ban people for saying "nitwit" or pointing out one's spelling mistakes. That is beyond wrong.

Giving them warnings and eventually doing the ban itself is a much better way to solve this problem.


----------



## dream (Feb 22, 2012)

> I'm just going to be blunt. You have no idea what's going on in the Library.
> 
> 
> 
> Locked, no flaming.



Except that thread did have flaming in it.  Even you said that it did have flaming in it.



Seph said:


> Reported for flaming and spamming and negged for... silliness.




Not exactly sure why this thread was closed but I would assume that it was closed because the topic has been done quite a bit before and even then it was allowed to to go on for 273 posts which is quite a bit of discussion.

Also, another thread was created around that same time with the same topic as your thread.  There was some baiting/flaming going on in there so I assume that one reason the staff probably closed both threads because the discussion and the baiting/flaming might have shifted over to your thread. 




There was some baiting going on in that thread according to some posts deleted by Naruko.  Also it seems that the thread became off-topic which was likely why it was closed.




Dragonus Nesha said:


> Yamato is clearly referring to Naruto's control, not his speed.
> 
> We don't need this debate being dredged back up.



That debate didn't really need to be brought back up.


----------



## Seph (Feb 22, 2012)

> Except that thread did have flaming in it. Even you said that it did have flaming in it.



One person flaming does not mean that we should lock the thread. We should only do so if other people flame as well.

By that logic, we should be locking half of the threads in the Library, lol.



> Not exactly sure why this thread was closed but I would assume that it was closed because the topic has been done quite a bit before and even then it was allowed to to go on for 273 posts which is quite a bit of discussion.



Self-contradictory sentence. If it has been done quite a bit before why did they let it get 273 posts in the first place?

No reason to lock it at all, other than it getting too heated.



> There was some baiting going on in that thread according to some posts deleted by Naruko. Also it seems that the thread became off-topic which was likely why it was closed.



3 posts after Naruko's warning and it got closed? Don't you think that's a bit suspicious?

It was clearly someone else doing the locking.



> That debate didn't really need to be brought back up.



Yes, it did. Anything that people can't agree on is a debate that needs to be brought back up.

And that's not even an argument in the first place.


----------



## Mist Puppet (Feb 22, 2012)

Kakashi Hatake said:


> Either way, rules need to be relaxed. I mean pointing out someone spelling mistakes isn't going to hurt anyone.



Pointing out spelling mistakes in a thread that isn't about pointing out spelling mistakes is off-topic and not needed. 

And depending on how one "points out spelling mistakes", it could even be considered flamebaiting. 

If you honestly, truly need to point them out, there's a handy little thing called PMs and VMs.

Edit: on the topic of joke threads. 

Joke threads are supposed to be FUNNY. If you want true joke threads, go look at some of the edit threads in the SL. 

What joke threads aren't supposed to do is start some stupid war over fandoms. That is baiting, and you basically admitted it Seph. So really, I can't sympathize with any of your cries against mods.


----------



## Seph (Feb 22, 2012)

> So really, I can't sympathize with any of your cries against mods.



You don't have to.

Just look at my points rather than my history and see if you agree. My history doesn't make me any less correct.

There are plenty of people with relatively clean histories that agree with me.


----------



## Rawri (Feb 22, 2012)

This is a real shame. Seph's edit threads were very well done. It's obvious they will not please everyone, but they're not supposed to be something you take seriously. Gai vs Akatsuki comes to mind. Nonsense yet hilarious.

Yes, edit threads might cause heated discussion. But banning people from posting them is not the way to go. Most threads will have way more flaming, like Itachi vs Minato or anything concerning those two. Following this logic, shouldn't those threads be immediately closed and the poster banned from creating more threads? 

I hope edit threads get unbanned, they were a nice touch to the forums.


----------



## Seph (Feb 22, 2012)

> I hope edit threads get unbanned, they were a nice touch to the forums.



I don't want to go off-topic, but I just want to clear this up.

All of my topics got banned in every section, including edit threads and complaint threads.

I only got this thread posted thanks to Spy Smasher.


----------



## Whirlpool (Feb 22, 2012)

Seph said:


> Not *you* per se, I don't know where you got that idea. I was referring to people who disagreed with me in general.
> 
> I LIKE heated discussions. I find them healthy to the forum as a whole.
> 
> Anime is a very serious topic for some people, and even more serious when it comes to the characters they're fans of and such. Why shouldn't we encourage heated discussions? This is an anime forum.



Isn't that what debate means?

Heated discussions is internet culture, if an insult is thrown, just let them deal with it. If the person continues to do so, give them a warning.

Like work before you get fired. Warning, written letter, fired.

Warning, second warning, banned for the amount of time.


----------



## Stelios (Feb 22, 2012)

Seph said:


> I don't want to go off-topic, but I just want to clear this up.
> 
> All of my topics got banned in every section, including edit threads and complaint threads.
> 
> I only got this thread posted thanks to Spy Smasher.



Correct me if I m wrong you "sound" like as if they have a problem with you. Post it clearly Seph who do you think hates you and why. Frankly if this is something personal against you by a certain Mod we could steer a forum motion to  dethrone him. After all moderators are replaceable species.


----------



## Seph (Feb 22, 2012)

mstelios said:


> Correct me if I m wrong you "sound" like as if they have a problem with you. Post it clearly Seph who do you think hates you and why. Frankly if this is something personal against you by a certain Mod we could steer a forum motion to  dethrone him. After all moderators are replaceable species.



I'm not the only one who has problems with mods.

In this current system, it doesn't matter who we mod. As long as this system exists, no matter who we mod, the same problems are going to exist because the people in charge encourage strictness even if it's in excess.

I'm against the system. Not the mods.


----------



## Closet Pervert (Feb 22, 2012)

Grimmjowsensei's sig brought me here. InB4 lock

As an Uchiha hater (mostly) it's very easy to see how many of your threads can annoy and seem to kind of beg for flaming and raging. Also, some other fanboys do go pretty far to piss normal people off with their non stop wank spam that's filling 60% of Konoha library.

However, perma banning from making threads is just too harsh. Also, if someone gets pissed off by those threads then it is their problem to some extent. One must learn to not take manga so seriously. Though i do not completely disagree with some of the short time bans some of the excessive spammers/baiters get.

I have seen the mods close a topic for no apparent reason at least once and myself have been banned for 3 times for increasingly ridiculous reasons (by the same mod i think).



Rawri said:


> Gai vs Akatsuki comes to mind. *Nonsense* yet hilarious.


YOU TAKE THAT BACK FUCKER.


----------



## butcher50 (Feb 22, 2012)

since the cowardly mods refused to answer my initial question (about Hawkman's fate)

then i will proceed with the following: the problem with the Moderators is not their rampant witchhunts against provokers like Seph (i'm actually fine with that if the end result is a peaceful co-existence with other fandoms) , the real problem is the little nasty fact that up there on the mod pedestal the LAWs are different from down here, posting stuff which will be immediately deleted or get you instantly banned (or permanently blocked from a specific section or strip you of other capabilities as in Seph's case) will be either completely ignored, forgiven or at best just wrist-slapped when the perpetrator is someone of a strong connection to the Mod's social circle club.

you cover-up eachother's asses that's nice, except that you can't go around banning, blocking, crippling everyone left and right in the name of of law-abiding and good civilized behavior when don't apply the same standards to your precious social club cronies.


----------



## Mister (Feb 22, 2012)

> None of my threads had any flaming whatsoever and they still got closed (and me banned) for this very reason.



Yet quite a few times you admit to making your threads for the purpose of pure trolling. Your history likely showed that too.


If you were banned, its not because of some kindergarden thing, it is probably because you consistently broke rules despite prior warnings. 
No amount of spinning or rationalising will change that.


That and I hardly seeing the majority of the library complaining about moderators. Except people who tend to have run in with the mods frequently.


----------



## Dragonus Nesha (Feb 22, 2012)

I would just like to set the record straight: Seph hasn't been permanently banned from making threads.


butcher50 said:


> since the cowardly mods refused to answer my initial question (about Hawkman's fate)


Because it was off-topic?
HawkMan's fate is in his own hands right now, and no, I'm not going to be more specific than that.


----------



## Seph (Feb 22, 2012)

> I would just like to set the record straight: Seph hasn't been permanently banned from making threads.



When I try to make a topic:



> You have been banned for the following reason:
> No reason was specified.
> 
> Date the ban will be lifted: Never


----------



## lathia (Feb 22, 2012)

Oh, but he didn't specify the section


----------



## dream (Feb 22, 2012)

> One person flaming does not mean that we should lock the thread. We should only do so if other people flame as well.
> 
> By that logic, we should be locking half of the threads in the Library, lol.



Such threads are usually closed to prevent more flaming from other others.  Being reactionary, by closing threads after more flaming has occurred, is too slow since the damage has already been done.  The staff being preventative may cause more frustration for members but I think that it's the best option for the community.  Closing threads, before they delve into shitstorms full of flaming, can keep members from being banned because of flaming/baiting.  As it is the only member, that I'm aware of, that was banned in the first thread you linked was DarkRasengan.  If that topic wasn't closed then isn't it possible that someone else may have flammed or broken other rules?  That would probably mean more bans which would lead to a decrease in the amount of people posting in the KL, that isn't exactly a good thing.  

If there are other threads that have a member flaming quite a bit, DarkRasengan had several posts full of flaming, and they aren't closed then by all means bring them up.  Also, not every staff member deals with such things in the same exact manner so it really depends on which mod dealt with the thread.



> Self-contradictory sentence. If it has been done quite a bit before why did they let it get 273 posts in the first place?
> 
> No reason to lock it at all, other than it getting too heated.



I can only guess at why they let the thread get to where it did.  It had been, as far as I'm aware, a decent amount of time between the last big thread dealing with the same issue so perhaps they decided to let people discuss it for a bit.  Thing is that such an issue isn't really something that you can bring new information to, unless Kishi adds new info about Itachi's actions which he didn't as far as I recall, and the same arguments tend to be used again and again.  It's an issue where people are deeply divided and I don't see too many having a change of heart, things start to be repeated if only in different words.  And a day after you made that thread another thread was opened up dealing with the same issues, that thread ended up having even more activity than your thread.  Again, I don't see new information being brought up in a topic that has been discussed to the death before.  Then some baiting/flaming occurred so the staff probably decided that enough was enough and shut down both threads.

Of course I didn't read everything in those two threads so the discussion could be different from what I'm imagining it to have been.



> 3 posts after Naruko's warning and it got closed? Don't you think that's a bit suspicious?
> 
> It was clearly someone else doing the locking.



What's so suspicious about it?  Someone else likely did close it.   Even after Naruko's post there was discussion that was off-topic.  Someone came in and decided that the thread wasn't going to get back on track  and so he or she locked it.



> Yes, it did. Anything that people can't agree on is a debate that needs to be brought back up.
> 
> And that's not even an argument in the first place.



Eh, some debates will have people that refuse to budge on their stand.  What does debating it, after having debated it again and again, really accomplish?  With no new information you can't really bring something new to the debate unless people missed some crucial detail and I can only really see frustration, for some members, being the end result.


----------



## ovanz (Feb 22, 2012)

I only got banned once, and it was because i necro'd a thread in some section that was already on the 1ST or 2ND page. 

But i t was some **** who reported me (just put her in ignore list) and they banned me for trolling and necro wtf, even if it was by accident.


----------



## Seph (Feb 22, 2012)

> Such threads are usually closed to prevent more flaming from other others.



I'm sorry, but this is just ridiculous.

Let's have a hypothetical dead-serious, non-troll essay thread that is widely recognized to be one of the best current threads in the KL. Then some idiot comes in and starts to randomly insult people. Should we allow this idiot to ruin the entire thread? No, we shouldn't; we should give this idiot a warning and/or ban him to make him stop. 

We shouldn't let some random ruin threads with their flaming.

*Only when others start to flame, is when we should close that thread.*


> Again, I don't see new information being brought up in a topic that has been discussed to the death before.



Not an argument. Should we not give newer members the chance to discuss the same topics? Also, some members may have not had the chance to discuss that specific topic before either. Why shouldn't we bring back topics that were already discussed from the dead?



> What's so suspicious about it? Someone else likely did close it. Even after Naruko's post there was discussion that was off-topic. Someone came in and decided that the thread wasn't going to get back on track and so he or she locked it.



Look, anyone rational would've waited for more than *3 goddamn posts*.



> Eh, some debates will have people that refuse to budge on their stand. What does debating it, after having debated it again and again, really accomplish? With no new information you can't really bring something new to the debate unless people missed some crucial detail and I can only really see frustration, for some members, being the end result.



_Not an argument. Should we not give newer members the chance to discuss the same topics? Also, some members may have not had the chance to discuss that specific topic before either. Why shouldn't we bring back topics that were already discussed from the dead?_

If we lock topics like these, then what's the point of having a forum with new members?


----------



## L. Messi [✔] (Feb 22, 2012)

This is why I don't post in KL or he Battledome anymore. Mods have no tolerence at all. I'm only lurking now, lol.

The football section is the best section. It's well moderated and we don't have to act as kindergarden childer there


----------



## Soul (Feb 22, 2012)

Chainer said:


> Otherwise, I can safely say that we are pretty damn lenient . . . especially compared to how we used to be.



Why is that, exactly?
I stopped posted regularly mainly because of this.


----------



## butcher50 (Feb 22, 2012)

Dragonus Nesha said:


> HawkMan's fate is in his own hands right now, and no, I'm not going to be more specific than that.



such secretiveness 

is it something Hawkman himself requested of you specifically or it's something that your elitist council decided on their own ?


----------



## Thunder (Feb 22, 2012)

Yeah, in my experience you really have to go out of your way to get banned in the NBD. When I first joined I was prone to flaming (I didn't bother to read the rules) and all I ever got was a warning from Suu, and I recall Distracted just telling me to tone it down a bit in one thread.

But I've never had a problem since 'cause it's not that hard to stop flaming. Learn some patience and you'll be fine.


----------



## Seph (Feb 22, 2012)

> Yeah, in my experience you really have to go out of your way to get banned in the NBD.



One person's experience doesn't really mean anything. While it's good that you had such an experience, one experience does not make the truth.

There are dozens of people who can testify the opposite. I myself got banned for calling someone "not the sharpest pencil in the pencil box" and apparently a bit more than that.

Grimmjowsensei got banned for saying someone's post gave him cancer or something, which is just an internet meme.

And so on and on.


----------



## KingBoo (Feb 22, 2012)

Seph said:


> *[*]Me and Nikushimi got banned for a week for pointing out Turrin's spelling mistakes.*
> I got banned for 5 days for calling someone "not the sharpest pencil in the pencil box."
> Mali got for calling someone a "nitwit."



are you serious? banned for telling someone about their spelling?

LMAO. so if you don't like what someone says, just pray that they spelled one word wrong and get him banned.


----------



## Zoan Marco (Feb 22, 2012)

Too tired to read the OP atm so I'm just gonna say the administration in NF is complete shit, lazy, and incompetent.


----------



## Thunder (Feb 22, 2012)

Seph said:


> One person's experience doesn't really mean anything. While it's good that you had such an experience, one experience does not make the truth.
> 
> There are dozens of people who can testify the opposite. I myself got banned for calling someone "not the sharpest pencil in the pencil box" and apparently a bit more than that.
> 
> ...



Oh I'm not saying what happened to me applies to everyone; that's why I said "in my experience". 

Well, how's your history? Do you get banned/warned often? Because if you do it would make sense that the mods would crack down on you harder than me.

I don't know you personally, but I've seen you debate in NBD Seph and you can heated sometimes, which is understandable. I understand because I was the same way (I still am). You just need to learn to pick your battles, I think. If the same few posters get you worked up _all_ the time, ignore them. I've seen a lot of good posters in that section (some you may know) continually fall into the same trap of letting people _subtly_ bait them.

I'm not sure exactly what happened with Grimmjow or you; these are just my thoughts on flaming in general.


----------



## Shattering (Feb 22, 2012)

I support OP and this thread 100%, something needs to change  .


----------



## Seph (Feb 22, 2012)

> Well, how's your history? Do you get banned/warned often? Because if you do it would make sense that the mods would crack down on you harder than me.



Yes, very often.

But there has to be a reason for this.. I mean, everyone starts out clean, right? Why do some people get cracked down harder than others when they're clean?



> You just need to learn to pick your battles, I think.



Which brings me to my point.

1. I read Naruto.
2. I am an Itachi fan.
3. Therefore, I want to defend Itachi.
4. Therefore, if I see an anti-Itachi topic, I will likely defend him.
5. But I can't do this because mods will crack down on me if I get heated up.
6. What's the purpose of having an anime forum if you can't talk about the things you like?

Which is why I want things to be more lenient.


----------



## Baroxio (Feb 22, 2012)

I always wondered, how do people become mods in the first place?


----------



## Seph (Feb 22, 2012)

Baroxio said:


> I always wondered, how do people become mods in the first place?



They just make a list of active members and consider them one by one.


----------



## GaaraoftheDesert1 (Feb 22, 2012)

I dont really care about the administration. Seph should just do threads because he is bringing up good laughs. Dont be butthurt over that.


----------



## Octavian (Feb 22, 2012)

i think moving all the non plot/ character development related stuff to a  separate section of the KL would be a good choice. that way, posters can enter that section at their own risk and hype their characters to their liking, share jokes while others can ignore that if they want (fanclubs seem like the place for this i don't think anyone actually uses them) most common problem in the KL seems to be outrageous threads (even tho some might be intended as a joke) that usually end up in X character vs X character and more often than not multiple fandoms get involved. we don't want to curtail people's opinions  regardless of how they are so a separate section seems like the best bet.


----------



## ammarz (Feb 22, 2012)

I think people are painting a very simplistic picture and then blaming the mods. For example, some people getting banned for pointing out spelling mistakes. I am pretty sure there is more to it. What people miss is the context which is the most important thing. Mods know that and most of us don't. I have often seen people criticize the mods for banning posters for seemingly trivial things. However, when once or twice, the whole story has come out, the matters which seem trivial up front are quite complicated and often have a long history.

Taking the spelling mistakes case as an example, if one points out spelling mistakes in a condescending manner and demeans another poster, then it can constitute as a basis for a ban particularly if the said offender has a history. Distracted's post contains more examples such as these.

Moreover, saying mods should allow heated discussion is an ambiguous point. The crucial point is how much heated is acceptable. People have different views on that. In my opinion, mods allow heated discussion all the times, in the NBD at least where I am most active and in KL too. I would as far as to say they have been more lenient than I would have liked, but that is just my opinion. I joined in April 2010, but after sometime became inactive as I thought that the atmosphere was not conducive for a healthy discussion and mods gave too much room to the posters. 

I am not saying mods can't make mistakes. I am sure there have been unjustifiable bannings, however, in my opinion, they are not so commonplace as many believe it to be, at least not in NBD. I have seen people resort to name calling and still not get banned, and only get banned if they repeat such offenses regularly. I also don't think the forums rule to avoid flaming is a bad one. People really need to realize that they can have, as many here call, a heated discussion without resorting to insults and condescension.


----------



## tgm2x (Feb 22, 2012)

Though the direction of the topic is right it would be more legit a few months ago for KL, it's not that bad nowadays Or maybe it's just because people became scared to get ban and stopped "warm" discussions


----------



## Thunder (Feb 22, 2012)

Seph said:


> Yes, very often.



I see.



> But there has to be a reason for this.. I mean, everyone starts out clean, right? Why do some people get cracked down harder than others when they're clean?


I can't really say for sure; I don't see how your question is relevant when you aren't "clean". I assume it depends on things like how often you're flaming? 

For example, say you and I get into a heated discussion and we both flame each other. You have a long history of flaming people, while I've only done it once. How would you handle that situation if you were a mod? I would give the benefit of the doubt to me — who normally doesn't flame — and let me off with a warning or something. Too you it would seem like this is unfair, because you don't have access to all of the information (i.e. our histories).

Or did I misunderstand your question?



> Which brings me to my point.
> 
> 1. I read Naruto.
> 2. I am an Itachi fan.
> ...



Okay . . .
Nothing wrong with this.
Again, this isn't a bad thing.
Depends on how you go about this. Are you yelling and screaming at anyone who disagrees with you?
This doesn't make sense to me. Not _once_ has my fun on this site been impacted because I wasn't able to flame. Why does being passionate about a subject have to entail flaming your opponents? There are plenty of ways to defend your fav without going overboard. If you present your case on why Itachi can do X — and no one agrees with you — what can you do? Personally, I would start to reevaluate how I saw these feats.
It's done all the time . . .



> Which is why I want things to be more lenient.


Instead of re-defining the rules in order to make them more lenient for those who get into trouble often in these sections (a minority), wouldn't it make more sense to just follow the majorities lead, and make some changes to _themselves_? If you keep having run ins with mods, you're probably doing _something _wrong.

Again, I don't have all of the facts here about your situation in particular. I'm just speaking from what I've seen.


----------



## Seph (Feb 22, 2012)

> I don't see how your question is relevant when you aren't "clean".



The question isn't relevant to me per se, but this topic is about general policy, not me.

I've been more prone to actions from moderators since the very day I got active here, despite having no past history whatsoever. So why is this?

I'm guessing it's because I'm an Itachi fan, and mods target them more than any other fanbase. I'm sure you've noticed this as well. I don't want to turn this into an Uchiha racism thread, but it's getting kinda obvious now. People like Turrin and SuperSaiyaMan12 get away with *whatever* they want, and yet people like me, Niku, Grimm, and Strat (the greatest Itachi fans on this forum, or at least the Naruto sections) get banned for the most nonsensical things I can ever imagine.

I make threads/posts thinking I won't get banned for them. I've made this same mistake over and over and over until it finally resulted in my reply-only ban.



> For example, say you and I get into a heated discussion and we both flame each other. You have a long history of flaming people, while I've only done it once. How would you handle that situation if you were a mod? I would give the benefit of the doubt to me — who normally doesn't flame — and let me off with a warning or something. Too you it would seem like this is unfair, because you don't have access to all of the information (i.e. our histories).



It totally depends on what the users themselves said.. if I called you a nitwit, for example, I think it'd be better to let that user off with a warning rather than a week or 2 week long ban due to their history. 

And from thereon, after that warning, if I continued flaming you with the same trivial insults over and over, it should add up to a ban of 2 weeks (assuming I have a history).

In my opinion, you should be treated the same but only receive a ban of one day at the end of it all. Maybe more warnings as it's your first banning, but other than that, basically the same.

In my history per se, however, my flames have been noticeably getting lighter and lighter since my banning. I've completely stopped flaming since I got banned for saying "not the sharpest pencil in the pencil box" because I realized that mods really have no tolerance for any kind of flaming whatsoever.



> Depends on how you go about this. Are you yelling and screaming at anyone who disagrees with you?



That's the point. Flamebait/flaming is a subjective thing. What a mod may consider flaming, one may not consider as such. I don't consider calling someone a nitwit flaming; it ought to deserve a warning at best. But a 2 week ban?

This is the problem.. I think the mods are too intolerant of heated discussions in general. They should tolerate them a bit more and acknowledge the fact that an anime forum isn't going to be a kindergarten. People need to get used to this, instead of expecting mods to hold their hands.

I'm not saying we shouldn't take any action, but we should start giving people warnings rather than just banning right off the bat.



> This doesn't make sense to me. Not once has my fun on this site been impacted because I wasn't able to flame. Why does being passionate about a subject have to entail flaming your opponents? There are plenty of ways to defend your fav without going overboard. If you present your case on why Itachi can do X — and no one agrees with you — what can you do? Personally, I would start to reevaluate how I saw these feats.



You're missing the point. Mods in general don't like *chaotic* discussions, as in, very heated discussions with no flaming whatsoever. I've given numerous examples and proof of these threads--threads of mine that have gotten locked due to their mere "potential" to start a flame war, despite having no flaming.

I'm not saying people should start flaming and tell them to go fuck themselves and what not, I'm saying they should be more tolerant.



> It's done all the time . . .



I totally disagree. Just look at the KL for a few days; you'll see a bunch of potential flamebait threads locked despite having no flame wars whatsoever.



> Instead of re-defining the rules in order to make them more lenient for those who get into trouble often in these sections (a minority), *wouldn't it make more sense to just follow the majorities lead*, and make some changes to themselves? If you keep having run ins with mods, you're probably doing something wrong.



I'm sorry, but this is just naive. People don't really change all that much, nor are they willing to change.

You're also presupposing that people *need *to change (that people are the ones with the problem), which they don't, or at least don't need to too much.

If I sent you to jail for 2 years for stealing a lollipop from a baby, would that mean you should change? No. That just means it's an overreaction from my part.


----------



## Zoan Marco (Feb 22, 2012)

Thunder will be wanking mods until he gets owned by one.


----------



## ammarz (Feb 22, 2012)

Zoan Marco said:


> Thunder will be wanking mods until he gets owned by one.



You are really not helping mate. Try to make a reasoned argument and bring something to the table.


----------



## Zoan Marco (Feb 22, 2012)

ammarz said:


> You are really not helping mate. Try to make a reasoned argument and bring something to the table.



Alright I will, he's defending mods because they haven't done anything to him when he has seen the evidence of their wrong doing.

With that logic I can say Hitler was a good person because he never did anything to me or my family.


----------



## ammarz (Feb 22, 2012)

Zoan Marco said:


> Alright I will, he's defending mods because they haven't done anything to him when he has seen the evidence of their wrong doing.
> 
> With that logic I can say Hitler was a good person because he never did anything to me or my family.



Maybe, he looked at the arguments and thought that the mods had a case and he used his own experience in his analysis. His own experiences includes mods behaviour against not only himself, but other posters as well. He has been a member of this community for almost two years now and would have seen quite a lot of happenings. He just has a different opinion than yours.

In my opinion, you are giving an extreme example to justify your short response against him that does not apply here at all.


----------



## Zoan Marco (Feb 22, 2012)

ammarz said:


> Maybe, he looked at the arguments and thought that the mods had a case and he used his own experience in his analysis. His own experiences includes mods behaviour against not only himself, but other posters as well. He has been a member of this community for almost two years now and would have seen quite a lot of happenings. He just has a different opinion than yours.
> 
> In my opinion, you are giving an extreme example to justify your short response against him that does not apply here at all.



It's not about opinions, you wanted to me to respond, I responded with facts. He hasn't seen or gone through the bullshit that me and many other members have been through, and if he has then he's just wanking mods to be on their good side.


----------



## ammarz (Feb 22, 2012)

Zoan Marco said:


> It's not about opinions, you wanted to me to respond, I responded with facts. He hasn't seen or gone through the bullshit that me and many other members have been through, and if he has then he's just wanking mods to be on their good side.



Well, you are doing what he did, relying on one's own experience which includes one's own personal dealings with the mods and other people's dealing with them which one knows off to form a judgment about them. I am pretty sure, in addition to his experience, Thunder would have looked at the arguments presented by Seph too. 

I don't know about your case. Maybe, the mods did get it wrong in your case or maybe they didn't. I can't be sure. The point is everybody thinks they are right. Your version of the 'facts', may differ from the opposing parties'. I am not saying that you are not stating the truth. However, you are demeaning and doubting another's sincerity of opinion just because he has a different take than you on a issue. And to justify your claim, you gave the example of Hitler. The two situations are not comparable at all, resorting to such an extreme example should tell you that.

You may disagree with him, however you have no reason to doubt his sincerity of opinion or belittle it.


----------



## Thunder (Feb 22, 2012)

Seph said:


> The question isn't relevant to me per se, but this topic is about general policy, not me.



Gotcha.



> I've been more prone to actions from moderators since the very day I got active here, despite having no past history whatsoever. So why is this?


There's always two sides to something like this. Could several mods simply hate your guts and go out of their way to get you in trouble, as they sit there cackling manically in unison? The possiblity is certainly there, sure. But I have my suspicions that this is what we're seeing here.




> I'm guessing it's because I'm an Itachi fan, and mods target them more than any other fanbase.


I'm sure there are some Itachi/Uchiha fans on the staff. Maybe you guys are just more prone to getting heated in debates any other fandoms, thus you get banned more?

I mean, there will be bias mods out there. But I doubt it's the majority.



> I'm sure you've noticed this as well. I don't want to turn this into an Uchiha racism thread, but it's getting kinda obvious now. People like Turrin and SuperSaiyaMan12 get away with *whatever* they want, and yet people like me, Niku, Grimm, and Strat (the greatest Itachi fans on this forum, or at least the Naruto sections) get banned for the most nonsensical things I can ever imagine.


I'm just gonna put this is spoilers since I don't want to discuss members here.


*Spoiler*: __ 



I'm friends (or on friendly terms) with just about everyone you've mentioned there (yes, Itachi and Jiraiya/Naruto/Minato fans), and I can tell you you're dead wrong. SSM has told me _countless _times that he's gotten banned, warned, etc. for going at it with the Itachi fan base. 

I don't know about Turrin since I don't see him much in the Battledome these days, but in my two years of being here I've _never_ seen the guy flame. 

From what I've seen of Niku; I think he's a good guy who really takes the seriousness out of these debates, but he does troll sometimes (I'm not sure if that's he was banned). 

As for Strat; while I often find myself arguing against him, we still have a mutual respect for each other. But like you he can heated sometimes (not sure if that was why he was banned). 

I don't know much about Grimmjow other than the fact that he thinks Itachi solos. 






> I make threads/posts thinking I won't get banned for them. I've made this same mistake over and over and over until it finally resulted in my reply-only ban.


What kinds of threads? The ones where you go into great lengths to explain how a certain character is the greatest ever? Because those have been done to death.



> It totally depends on what the users themselves said.. if I called you a nitwit, for example, I think it'd be better to let that user off with a warning rather than a week or 2 week long ban due to their history.


You're entitled to that opinion. But is it really okay to allow you to say "nitwit" whenever you want? Personally, I don't have a problem if someone flames me in a debate anymore. But there are plenty of users who will find that word offensive. Everyone's different. 



> And from thereon, after that warning, if I continued flaming you with the same trivial insults over and over, it should add up to a ban of 2 weeks (assuming I have a history).


It makes sense, at least to me.



> In my opinion, you should be treated the same but only receive a ban of one day at the end of it all. Maybe more warnings as it's your first banning, but other than that, basically the same.


It seems to me like you just want to have free range to do whatever (sorry if I'm misreading you).



> In my history per se, however, my flames have been noticeably getting lighter and lighter since my banning. I've completely stopped flaming since I got banned for saying "not the sharpest pencil in the pencil box" because I realized that mods really have no tolerance for any kind of flaming whatsoever.


What section(s)?



> That's the point. Flamebait/flaming is a subjective thing. What a mod may consider flaming, one may not consider as such. I don't consider calling someone a nitwit flaming; it ought to deserve a warning at best. But a 2 week ban?


I see what you mean. But words like "nitwit" are generally accepted as being insulting wherever you are. If you already know that some mods will have a problem with the word, simply stop using it.

But yeah, I agree that nitwit isn't as bad as some other words.



> This is the problem.. I think the mods are too intolerant of heated discussions in general. They should tolerate them a bit more and acknowledge the fact that an anime forum isn't going to be a kindergarten. People need to get used to this, instead of expecting mods to hold their hands.
> 
> I'm not saying we shouldn't take any action, but we should start giving people warnings rather than just banning right off the bat.
> 
> ...


Ah, okay.



> I totally disagree. Just look at the KL for a few days; you'll see a bunch of potential flamebait threads locked despite having no flame wars whatsoever.


I don't frequent the KL much these days, but I assume these threads have a history of flaming?



> I'm sorry, but this is just naive. People don't really change all that much, nor are they willing to change.


Naive? I prefer . . . optimistic. : P

Anyone can tone down on the flaming (I did, and I'm far from special). All it takes is a little maturity and the ability to admit that you were in the wrong, which is hard for us debaters. 



> You're also presupposing that people *need *to change (that people are the ones with the problem), which they don't, or at least don't need to too much.


Yes; change how you _approach_ things, not necessarily your personality. 



> If I sent you to jail for 2 years for stealing a lollipop from a baby, would that mean you should change? No. That just means it's an overreaction from my part.


Well . . . yeah if you're stealing you should probably rethink what you're doing. Obviously I don't agree with getting sent to jail for two years for such a thing (this is a ridiculously extreme example, btw).

*_____________*​*
@ Zoan*

Sorry that you get the impression that I am "wanking" mods, but like I said I'm just speaking from _my own_ dealings with them. _I've_ been warned for flaming. _I've_ been warned for spam. _I've_ been warned for going off-topic. _I've_ been warned for going over the sig limits (_multiple_ times), etc. In fact, _I_ was a sign-up troll. 

Do you know what my reaction to all these warnings was? Stop flaming. Stop spamming. Stop going off-topic. Find a sig that fits. And in my two years of being here, I have yet to have an issue with anything after doing all of these things. You say once I've dealt with mods I'd change my tune - I already have dealt with 'em, sir. Ammarz hit the nail on the head - everyone has different experiences about these things.

I'm not sure what happened to you (or anyone else), like I've stated several times.

Do mods need to be more accepting of these "flame threads"? Maybe they do. I'm just saying I don't have a problem with the current system. That's all. I'm not here to paint mods as angels.


----------



## Zoan Marco (Feb 22, 2012)

ammarz said:


> Well, you are doing what he did, relying on one's own experience which includes one's own personal dealings with the mods and other people's dealing with them which one knows off to form a judgment about them. I am pretty sure, in addition to his experience, Thunder would have looked at the arguments presented by Seph too.
> 
> I don't know about your case. Maybe, the mods did got it wrong in your case or maybe they didn't. I can't be sure. The point is everybody thinks they are right. Your version of the 'facts', maybe differ from the opposing parties. I am not saying that you are not stating the truth. However, you are demeaning and doubting another's sincerity of opinion just because he has a different take than you on a issue. And to justify your claim, you gave the example of Hitler. The two situations are not comparable at all, resorting to such an extreme example should tell you that.
> 
> You may disagree with him, however you have no reason to doubt his sincerity of opinion or belittle it.



But in this topic his experience and opinions don't matter, the ones who have been banned are the ones that matter. Obviously the Hitler analogy is way out of proportion but it's still the same point. I don't get what's so hard to understand, the mods have done tons of bullshit to many people and he's saying they haven't because they didn't to *him*.


----------



## Seph (Feb 22, 2012)

> I'm sure there are some Itachi/Uchiha fans on the staff. Maybe you guys are just more prone to getting heated in debates any other fandoms, thus you get banned more?
> 
> I mean, there will be bias mods out there. But I doubt it's the majority.



It certainly seems to be the majority in these two sections we're talking about right now.



> I don't know about Turrin since I don't see him much in the Battledome these days, but in my two years of being here I've never seen the guy flame.



I didn't get reply-only banned for flaming. I got reply-only banned for making "flamebait" threads.

ALL of Turrin's threads are "flamebait." They hype Minato to hell but he always, always gets away with it.



> What kinds of threads? The ones where you go into great lengths to explain how a certain character is the greatest ever? Because those have been done to death.



I never go into great lengths (I'm too lazy for that, because I know mods will end up closing my thread anyway). I always talk about something specific.

Here are some examples of my topics:


Bee vs. Itachi is a feat for Bee
Itachi is the Roger, Yamamoto & Acacia of this manga
Naruto can't counter MS
Will Itachi end up sealing Sasuke?

These are all topics with the potential for very heated discussion. But I assure you that, similarly, none of these topics have had any flaming whatsoever. They simply got closed for either being chaotic or having the potential to get chaotic.



> You're entitled to that opinion. But is it really okay to allow you to say "nitwit" whenever you want? Personally, I don't have a problem if someone flames me in a debate anymore. But there are plenty of users who will find that word offensive. Everyone's different.



No, I'm just saying they ought to get warned.

Let's imagine that you need 10 points to get banned. A minor insult like nitwit ought to get you 2 points. A major insult like calling someone a motherfucking ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) or something should get you like 5 points.

I'm not saying it's okay. I'm saying we should be more tolerant of it, that's all.



> It seems to me like you just want to have free range to do whatever (sorry if I'm misreading you).



 I'm saying that I should get warnings, how is that "giving me the free range to do whatever?" You're smarter than this.



> What section(s)?



Mostly the Library.



> Well . . . yeah if you're stealing you should probably rethink what you're doing. Obviously I don't agree with getting sent to jail for two years for such a thing (this is a ridiculously extreme example, btw).



I know, but you get my point right?


----------



## ammarz (Feb 22, 2012)

Zoan Marco said:


> But in this topic his experience and opinions don't matter, the ones who have been banned are the ones that matter. Obviously the Hitler analogy is way out of proportion but it's still the same point. I don't get what's so hard to understand, the mods have done tons of bullshit to many people and he's saying they haven't because they didn't to *him*.



No, he isn't. He is not just talking about himself, but also cases he knows off. He can only speak for the knowledge he has. In his experience, mods have been mostly right. 

Now you come along and you bash the mods, however the mods will have their side too. How can he or anybody else decide if you were in the wrong or the mods if he does not have full information regarding the incident. The same applies for Seph's incident. 

You obviously think you were in the right, but it not so obvious for us who don't have complete information. Maybe, you are right, maybe you aren't. One can only decide when one knows all the details, and in Thunder's case he does not.


----------



## Thunder (Feb 22, 2012)

Anyway, I'm not here to fight with you guys and get into a 10 page quote war over opinions. I just thought I should come in and say something since I saw some folks mention the BD, and I have some experience dealing with the mods there. My experiences in the KL are limited, admittedly. 

Seph, I enjoyed our debate. Feel free to PM me if you want to continue outside of this thread, since this will probably be my last post here.


----------



## Seph (Feb 22, 2012)

Thunder said:


> Anyway, I'm not here to fight with you guys and get into a 10 page quote war over opinions. I just thought I should come in and say something since I saw some folks mention the BD. My experiences in the KL are limited.
> 
> Seph, I enjoyed our debate. Feel free to PM me if you want to continue outside of this thread, since this will probably be my last post here.



No, feel free to reply. All opposing opinions are encouraged because it lets me explain myself and my side better. I'm sure other people think the same way.

Likewise.


----------



## Big Mom (Feb 22, 2012)

I got banned for calling someone an idiot.


This is EXACTLY what I was preaching about before. In certain sections, the rules are followed to the extreme, hell, sometimes even more so, like you mentioned about locking an topics that could potentially cause heated discussion or by calling people really not that bad words. Then, in some sections *cough* OBD *cough* you can call people every name in the book and NOTHING happens to you. Sometimes, the mods even encourage it (not pointed out any in particular, but you know who you are). This really isn't fair to those of us who venture into all sections, because we don't know what rules to follow anymore since the mods pretty much make up their own rules. 

A pity really.


----------



## Ryuzaki (Feb 22, 2012)

Zoan Marco said:


> Alright I will, he's defending mods because they haven't done anything to him when he has seen the evidence of their wrong doing.
> 
> With that logic I can say Hitler was a good person because he never did anything to me or my family.


I don't really have a problem with moderators aside as much as I do with _*some*_ of their policies. It is easy to confuse the two.


----------



## Donquixote Doflamingo (Feb 22, 2012)

Well this forum is way more forgiving of many things then lets say the One Manga forums are, seriously flame-bait or insult someone a little bit, your hit with a ban for a couple days if not more. Besides that i do not think permanently banning anyone is the right choice. If anyone that Gaaraofthedesert dude should be Perma-banned with his constant trolling of everything but whatever. 

Anyway Un-ban Seph i love his threads, the other fanboys need to grow up and realize not everyone has to like their favorite character. Kabuto is one of my favorite characters, and most of the people around here make bashing threads about him at least once a week. You do not see me bitching about it, or starting flame wars and what not.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Feb 22, 2012)

Seph, I don't get away with 'everything'. Hell, I got banned a year ago from flaming for two weeks. No why I haven't gotten banned again, I cleaned up my act. Hell if I even flame, I correct myself. 

You're complaining about Turrin's threads and comparing them to yours. Turrin's posts may be annoying, but he isn't _intentionally_ trying to cause a fandom war. He isn't flaming people. He isn't flame baiting people. He isn't insulting their intelligence and then feigning ignorance when he (and he does ) get punished. 

Seph, on Page 3 Naruko outlined why you were banned:



> edit: @Blazing and Seph re: the "spelling correction ban" - we never have banned JUST for correcting someones spelling. Ever. Now, if you have a history of flaming and or baiting and prior bans for same and you stop to make a post that is off topic and exists SOLELY to mock someones spelling, implying they are mentally deficient for making that misspelling and/or that all their arguments are suddenly invalid because of said spelling error....guess what. You didn't get banned for correcting their spelling. You got banned for trolling, posting off topic and flamebaiting. So stop bringing that up out of context. I know you would like to represent yourself as a beleaguered innocent, beset by horrible and intolerant mods, but we are never that petty or frivolous...there is always a history behind a ban and we are happy to spell it out. I just prefer to do so privately but since you keep bringing that particular event up, I decided to try and clear things up on our ban policies.



You either missed it or didn't want to address it.

There is a difference between 'supporting Itachi' and creating topics _specifically designed_ to bait people who either don't like him, or think he's overrated.


----------



## Seph (Feb 22, 2012)

> You either missed it or didn't want to address it.



I didn't want to address it because I was told by several mods here that pointing out one's spelling mistakes is flamebaiting, and therefore banworthy.


----------



## Seph (Feb 22, 2012)

> Bottomline, I side with moderators, based on what I've experienced. They never gave me shit, and apparently no one has a problem with me [Besides people who accuse me of Sasuke "tardism" because all of their jutsu lose meaning before my eyes]. I've never had a warning or any of that shit. If anything, I bring attention to bad behavior, and it's not like they don't see what I post myself to understand the context.



I don't have any problem with you siding with the moderators per se, but I do have a problem with your reasoning. 

Your entire post.. consists of "I." I this, I that.. I'm sorry but your experiences don't mean anything. Just because one person had no run-ins with the mods.. doesn't mean that they're good at their job.

I think you should also consider other people's experiences rather than just yours.


----------



## Mister (Feb 22, 2012)

Seph said:


> I didn't want to address it because I was told by several mods here that pointing out one's spelling mistakes is flamebaiting, and therefore banworthy.



Now, did you happen to only post to derail the thread? Or just to troll Turrin?  If it is the latter than that is certainly "banworthy". However the former is probably "banworthy" too, especially if you do it a lot of times despite 'punishers' carried out against you to discourage that.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Feb 22, 2012)

Seph said:


> I didn't want to address it because I was told by several mods here that pointing out one's spelling mistakes is flamebaiting, and therefore banworthy.


Yes, but it isn't the only thing. You have a history of flaming, flamebaiting, and trolling Seph. Do you deny that?


----------



## BlinkST (Feb 22, 2012)

What about our experiences with the mods though?


----------



## Seph (Feb 22, 2012)

Blinx-182 said:


> What about our experiences with the mods though?



Listen, I think the mods on Mangafox fail too.

But this is going off-topic. 

Why don't you think of what the mods did to me, Niku, Grimm, Strat, and to countless other members like Mali? I can keep going on and on. Why do you have to only think about your own experiences with the mods?


----------



## BlinkST (Feb 22, 2012)

I'm talking about exactly what you're talking about. You say think about what they *did* to *you* guys. When it could just as easily be asked, why don't you think of what they _*didn't*_ do to the rest of us.


----------



## Seph (Feb 22, 2012)

Blinx-182 said:


> I'm talking about exactly what you're talking about. You say think about what they *did* to *you* guys. When it could just as easily be asked, why don't you think of what they _*didn't*_ do to the rest of us.



Just because the majority of the members don't do anything banworthy doesn't mean that the system is fair for people who even slightly break rules.


----------



## Mister (Feb 22, 2012)

> Why don't you think of what the mods did to me, Niku, Grimm, Strat, and to countless other members like Mali? I can keep going on and on. Why do you have to only think about your own experiences with the mods?



Do you reckon you might be speaking from your own experience, and the experience of some, lets call them 'colourful' posters?

Though I'm unsure of Nikushimi. The others you mentioned, I'm sure I've seen them - to be nice - 'spice things up' numerous times. 


Now if a very noticeable number of posters - with valid reasons - came in complaining about the mods, even 'behaved' members: there's clearly something up.

Though if it is only a certain 'group' whose experience seem to be bad with the mods (which I suspect is the case here going by the fact you only list people from your particular 'in-group'), then I'm unsure. 
I mean I'm unsure if it should really be considered, especially with the 'spicy' nature and history of said posters.


----------



## Seph (Feb 22, 2012)

> Do you reckon you might be speaking from your own experience, and the experience of some, lets call them 'colourful' posters?



Read the first post. I don't give just my own experiences; I give other experiences as well.



> Now if a very noticeable number of posters - with valid reasons - came in complaining about the mods, even 'behaved' members: there's clearly something up.



Which. Is. Exactly. What. Happened. On. This. Thread.

8 pages. Read and see for yourself. Please. You'll end up agreeing with me.


----------



## BlinkST (Feb 22, 2012)

Seph said:


> Just because the majority of the members don't do anything banworthy doesn't mean that the system is fair for people who even slightly break rules.


Or in other words, _"punishment doesn't fit the crime!"_ and _"Duh! They have it out for us!"_


----------



## Seph (Feb 22, 2012)

Blinx-182 said:


> Or in other words, _"punishment doesn't fit the crime!"_ and _"Duh! They have it out for us!"_



Immature reply. I'm going to ignore your next reply if you keep this up.

Look, most people in the US don't end up in jail.

But let's say that anyone who broke the law in the US got executed. Basically, excessive action, same as in this thread, but an extreme example nonetheless.

Most people wouldn't end up getting executed, but the 1% of the lawbreakers would.

That doesn't mean it's fair. That's such a stupid argument.

Let's say that me and Niku and etc. ARE the 1%. But we get banned for the most stupid reasons. That doesn't make it fair for us, even if most people don't have problems with the mods.


----------



## Mister (Feb 22, 2012)

Seph said:


> Read the first post. I don't give just my own experiences; I give other experiences as well.



Other than youself, Nikushimi, Strategoob et al (all seem to be part of one 'in-group)... anyone else?



> Which. Is. Exactly. What. Happened. On. This. Thread.
> 
> 8 pages. Read and see for yourself. Please. You'll end up agreeing with me.



You mention "heated discussions" being closed, even if they're a potential for that happening.
I'll interpret "heated discussions" as threads which seem to have a clear intention to flame, troll or bait- is that necessarily bad?

Notice I also mentioned 'trolling' and 'baiting'; mods are intolerant to those things as they are too flaming. Flaming being the worst offender for obvious reasons.

I do feel you, people do get passionate with their arguments. They shouldn't be taxed for that. Though if they get passionate in such a way that the only way they can express said passion is through flaming (even trolling or outright baiting)... why would a mod take a chance?
Leave it out for too long and they'll have a field day banning people; cut it early and you save mass bans. Everyone - but the banned - wins.

I do need to ask, about the Turrin example: how did it happen?
Was it in a thread, or VM? If it was a thread why point it out in a thread? That not only goes off-topic, but it heavily suggests that you only intended to flame bait Turrin or troll him.
Assuming this was the reason, the mods would be wrong for banning you for flaming. Though they may ban you, with reason, if it was for trolling/flamebaiting- while taking a thread off topic.

I'm only running one situation: was what I said different from the actual event? If it was, I'm interested in reading it. If it isn't, then I don't see how the ban wasn't justified. 

Doing things like saying a poster is "not the sharpest pencil in the pencil box", or calling "nitwit" could be soft flaming. Though it could come across as if you were trying to troll or flamebait. The mods in question could probably answer that better than I can, given they enforce the rules and what not.

It probably isn't going too far to ban people for that, then.

Sure it doesn't reflect real life. However being in a forum you go by someone else's rules- the rules the mods enforce.
You dislike their rules, there's no point in changing it. Especially since your case seems... lets say its not the most sturdy case. 

Heated discussions will occur, you're doubtlessly right. Though the mods can choose to tolerate it if they want. 

Unfortunately I don't really think your case will be taken seriously at all. That's simply because of your history, if a mod, supermod or an admin reads this, they'll probably look at the content. Then your username and your history, your label makes things a little complex.

Even labels of people who support/don't support are *are* going to be considered.


Considering some of your examples and some things mentioned in the thread, I'd broaden the topic title to "Intolerance to Flaming, Trolling and Baiting". I feel that some examples and instances cited contain more elements of the latter two.


----------



## Seph (Feb 23, 2012)

> Other than youself, Nikushimi, Strategoob et al (all seem to be part of one 'in-group)... anyone else?



Anyone who has posted in this thread. Anyone who has had problems with the mods.

Do you really think it's just us? It's not.



> I'll interpret "heated discussions" as threads which seem to have a clear intention to flame, troll or bait- is that necessarily bad?



No, I meant heated as in just passionate, regardless of the intention.



> I do need to ask, about the Turrin example: how did it happen?



I didn't point out the spelling mistake in the thread. I pointed out his opinion.

Niku got banned for pointing his spelling mistake out.



> Unfortunately I don't really think your case will be taken seriously at all. That's simply because of your history, if a mod, supermod or an admin reads this, they'll probably look at the content.



1. You see many people agreeing with me, just read the thread
2. Chainer said he'd make a thread about it on the mod-only forum, so I've already accomplished my main purpose
3. It's a logical fallacy to ignore my opinion just because of who I am anyway


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Feb 23, 2012)

Niku got banned for flaming on that topic, as well as others. It wasn't a mere spelling mistake which Naruko pointed out.


----------



## navy (Feb 23, 2012)

What's this banned for a spelling mistake stuff? 

That cant be the whole story. Mods > Grammer Nazi's???


----------



## Stelios (Feb 23, 2012)

Seph said:


> Quote:
> I would just like to set the record straight: Seph hasn't been permanently banned from making threads.
> When I try to make a topic:
> 
> ...



Has this been resolved?


----------



## Distracted (Feb 23, 2012)

Seph said:


> I'm just going to be blunt. You have no idea what's going on in the Library.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So you have 2 threads with flamebait, and a bunch of topics that get talked about over and over again?  Nope, the library hasn't changed and your threads aren't just being locked for 'flaming' or 'being heated.'


----------



## Mister (Feb 23, 2012)

Seph said:


> No, I meant heated as in just passionate, regardless of the intention.



I don't think the "regardless of intention" thing will fly if the agenda is to rifle the feathers of many members. 

There are other ways to express passion, without trying to purposely get on the nerves of other posters.



> I didn't point out the spelling mistake in the thread. I pointed out his opinion.
> 
> Niku got banned for pointing his spelling mistake out.





Seph said:


> Me and Nikushimi got banned for a week for pointing out Turrin's spelling


​
Unless you meant that was your ban reason despite the fact you didn't actually rag on Turrin's spelling. In which case I'd probably agree, though I wasn't in the thread, so I can't really comment. 
It probably depends on if you were point out Turrin's opinion in a trollish manner, or an 'asshole-ish' manner, which can be taken as flame baiting.



> 1. You see many people agreeing with me, just read the thread
> 2. Chainer said he'd make a thread about it on the mod-only forum, so I've already accomplished my main purpose
> 3. It's a logical fallacy to ignore my opinion just because of who I am anyway



1. I read it, and in this case 'many' would be a flood of library posters coming here and agreeing with you. I looked through the thread and I wouldn't call the amount of people who agreed 'many people'.

2. Lets see if they agree with you in the end. 

3. Not in all cases. 
For example, lets say I make posts and threads with the sheer intent to troll and flamebait (let's toss in the odd flame or two). 
Let's say I get banned numerous times for that. I'll have a history of only wanting to cause shit and not actually contribute to the section.
So after enough bans, let's say I start criticising the way the staff handle bans and cite other people whose conduct is assumingly similar to mine and who generally support the 'shit' I cause.
I wouldn't exactly be objective in this cause, would I?

I'm honestly sure 'heated' discussions in the library do get closed because a lot of posters choose to get 'passionate' via flame bait as opposed to just flaming.
You only tackled 'flaming' excluding flamebaiting as a possible factor for the recent bannings.



Distracted said:


> So you have 2 threads with flamebait, and a bunch of topics that get talked about over and over again?  Nope, the library hasn't changed and your threads aren't just being locked for 'flaming' or 'being heated.'



^This is an advantage of speaking to the mods directly as opposed to making a thread about what you feel is wrong.
You mentioned 'heated discussion' and 'flaming', you left out flamebaiting. Which is coincidentally what distracted just mentioned.

Though repetitiveness, now that you mention it that does make a lot of sense. 
A lot of Itachi threads lately seem to be repetitive, I see the same case with other characters- but this character seems to stick out.


----------



## Ryuzaki (Feb 23, 2012)

I'm still confused is Seph permanently banned from ever making a thread on this forum, or is this temporary?


----------



## Taxman (Feb 23, 2012)

Ryuzaki said:


> I'm still confused is Seph permanently banned from ever making a thread on this forum, or is this temporary?



Since I've been lurking this thread, I'll give a response to this particular question...

Seph's thread-making privileges have been revoked _indefinitely_...that's not necessarily a permanent ban; however, because the ban system doesn't have a label for "indefinite," it's set to "permanent" so that the ban isn't lifted midway through possible discussion.  Indefinite comes with the pretext that it is a temporary ban.

Usually when an indefinite ban is put in place, the banned member is encouraged to make an SCR thread to discuss their case with the staff so that a more definite ban length can be ironed out.  It's the kind of ban "length" that expects the user to be proactive in their release.  By discussing it with the staff sooner rather than later and showing a sincere attempt to make the change necessary to not be in this particular situation again, the ban will be removed altogether (assuming the banning staff approves).  

I'll be honest and mention that I'm not the biggest fan in the world of the "indefinite ban" for a couple of reasons.  

1.  It leads to some hostility from members who think they are actually permanently banned.  

2.  Members should know exactly where they stand when they have something revoked.  

3.  Sort of goes against the whole "escalation" banning policy that's in place and it ultimately gives the impression that staff members "couldn't make up their mind"

However, it's something that exists and something several staff members like to use in order to try and talk things over with a user...sort of like those scare tactics by bringing troubled teens into a prison facility...


----------



## Roman (Feb 23, 2012)

Before I make a full opinion, I'd like to know exactly how banning people from making threads/from the boards themselves work? For example, in the last forum I was in, typically you'd get banned if you received infractions worth 3 points. So even if the offense was minor and the infractions received were only worth 1 point each, having three of them or more would mean a ban. Does it work in a similar way here?


----------



## Seph (Feb 23, 2012)

I'm on my phone so I can't respond properly now, but Taxman, I can't even make a thread in the SCR to contest my ban. It's almost unfair.


----------



## Taxman (Feb 23, 2012)

Yoko Takeo said:


> Before I make a full opinion, I'd like to know exactly how banning people from making threads/from the boards themselves work? For example, in the last forum I was in, typically you'd get banned if you received infractions worth 3 points. So even if the offense was minor and the infractions received were only worth 1 point each, having three of them or more would mean a ban. Does it work in a similar way here?



Well first, on this forum, the infraction points don't do anything.  When they were first implemented, they actually did a few things.  

For instance, after 3 points you were banned for so many days to a week.

After 5 points your name font was reduced to size 1.  

After 10 points, you were permanently banned.  

If a smod infracted a moderator at all, it fully removed the mod as a staff member.  

Needless to say that the implementation of the the infraction system was not really needed and the effects the points had were removed.  (The points actually doing something lasted less than one day).  The infraction system is really only used for a more open version of a user note that the user can see for themselves.  

As for the overall banning policy:
Depending on what you do and the discretion of the mods, is what ultimately decides what kind of ban you get and how long it is for.

If you break reputation rules, you'll get reputation banned based on a scale like warning --> 1 week --> 2 weeks --> 1 month --> 2 months --> 3 months --> 6 months --> permanent.

Sometimes rep slashes are implemented instead of going beyond a reputation ban longer than 3-6 months

If you break section specific rules or found that you really only cause issues in one particular section, you'll end up getting banned from that section with a scale such as:
warning --> 1 day --> 3 days --> 5 days --> 1 week --> 2 weeks --> 1 month --> 2 months --> 3 months --> 6 months --> permanent.

However, the scale is not always followed due to how minor the offense may be...but they are all accounted for in your history.  So you may have a couple of 1 day to week long bans due to some minor offenses (you may have even got extra warnings); but, if you accumulate enough of them to show that you're still having issues, then the minor offenses will start to follow the scale as well.  

Also, the forum also has an old reputation of how a permanent ban usually doesn't stay permanent anyway.  Out of all the members who ever came onto this forum, I could probably count on two hands the number of individuals who are not sign-up trolls/dupes/adbots who are truly permanently banned.

Breaking forum general rules will possibly get you forum-wide banned.  This follows what I said about section bans. 

However there are a few exceptions:
1.  Any duplicate account is automatically permanently banned.
2.  Posting pornographic material will get your banned automatically set to permanent, but you do have the opportunity to talk this ban length down based on the circumstances.
3.  Spoiler bans in anime sections that have spoiler rules tend to ban you for how severe the spoiler was...

Signature bans scale like reputation bans but people tend to get more warnings about this one.

If it's determined that you mostly cause problems with the threads you make, you get your thread making privileges revoked.  This also scales just like reputation bans.  

However, with most of these ban groups, there is also the idea of the "indefinite ban" which I mentioned in the above post.  It's one that doesn't go with the scale and is meant to really get the attention of the user to shape up or the permanent ban may be coming faster than expected.


----------



## Taxman (Feb 23, 2012)

Seph said:


> I'm on my phone so I can't respond properly now, but Taxman, I can't even make a thread in the SCR to contest my ban. It's almost unfair.



Ah yes, there is that particular issue with the thread ban...however, in those instances, you can contact a smod or admin to move/copy one of your posts into the SCR as a new thread so that you can talk there.


----------



## Seph (Feb 23, 2012)

Taxman said:


> Ah yes, there is that particular issue with the thread ban...however, in those instances, you can contact a smod or admin to move/copy one of your posts into the SCR as a new thread so that you can talk there.



I wasn't told this by the ones who banned me. I only got this thread made because Spy Smasher offered.


----------



## Raiden (Feb 23, 2012)

Kakashi Hatake said:


> Either way, rules need to be relaxed. I mean pointing out someone spelling mistakes isn't going to hurt anyone.



Just wanted to point out that it's for a while now, always been a delicate balancing act between  When the mods were less intense, the library had a rather ugly history of warring fandoms, insults and flames. Some of the mods were regular members who went through all of that, so I can see where the strictness comes from. The library while not nearly as active, is generally much more cordial than it used ot be.

Just wanted to point that out. Not sure what to make of Seph's complaint. I think all issues are best solved with specificity. Having a mod copy and paste a complaint in SCR/the thing Chainer said he would promise to do all sound like great ideas lol.

EDIT: Taxman is going to the Annual Lockfest.


----------



## Taxman (Feb 23, 2012)

Well do you want a thread in the SCR to discuss your thread ban?

Just say what you want it to be titled, and one of your posts will be copied over.

If I don't hear from you in about 10 minutes, then I won't be able to take care of it myself.  I'm about to head out as I'm attending a conference at the moment.


----------



## Ryuzaki (Feb 23, 2012)

Taxman said:


> Since I've been lurking this thread, I'll give a response to this particular question...
> 
> Seph's thread-making privileges have been revoked _indefinitely_...that's not necessarily a permanent ban; however, because the ban system doesn't have a label for "indefinite," it's set to "permanent" so that the ban isn't lifted midway through possible discussion.  Indefinite comes with the pretext that it is a temporary ban.
> 
> ...


Oh thanks for the clarification and yeah I had a feeling that there was some type of equivocal nature to his ban. But perhaps, you guys could cut him a break this one time or work out some other arrangement. 

Lol, I thought the infraction system was a good idea. It kept track of stuff but perhaps 10 pts is too low for getting perm'd.


----------



## Roman (Feb 23, 2012)

Taxman said:


> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's a very good system if the mods follow it very closely. I can't imagine that there are those who don't seeing as I haven't had negative experiences with any.



Seph said:


> Me and Nikushimi got banned for a week for pointing out Turrin's spelling mistakes.
> I got banned for 5 days for calling someone "not the sharpest pencil in the pencil box."
> Mali got for calling someone a "nitwit."



All of this happened only in the Konoha Library? Did things like this happen anywhere else?

I apologize if these questions were answered before, I haven't read through the whole thread.


----------



## Seph (Feb 23, 2012)

> Well do you want a thread in the SCR to discuss your thread ban?
> 
> Just say what you want it to be titled, and one of your posts will be copied over.
> 
> If I don't hear from you in about 10 minutes, then I won't be able to take care of it myself. I'm about to head out as I'm attending a conference at the moment.



Thanks for the offer, but I don't want one. I'd prefer not to defend myself in the presence of hostile moderators (I'm not going to give any names); and one in particular who threatened me, stating that he'd look for any reason possible to give me and my friend a nice long ban.



> So you have 2 threads with flamebait, and a bunch of topics that get talked about over and over again? Nope, the library hasn't changed and your threads aren't just being locked for 'flaming' or 'being heated.'



2 threads with "flamebait?" There is no such thing as "flamebait." Anyone can consider any written sentence as "flamebait" if they wanted to. I could say hi to someone and that person may be so deranged that they may consider it as "flamebait."

That's just your subjective opinion. There are plenty of people who agree with me and don't really think it was "flamebait."

You can, with that logic, call any thread "flamebait," and especially the kinds of threads that Turrin makes. His threads get an insane amount of discussion due to people passionately disagreeing with him and such, but he always gets away with everything.



> All of this happened only in the Konoha Library? Did things like this happen anywhere else?



1. Was in the Library
2. NBD
3. OBD


----------



## Darth Nihilus (Feb 23, 2012)

Seph said:


> Me and Nikushimi banned for a week





Seph said:


> for pointing out Turrin's spelling mistakes.


----------



## Judas (Feb 23, 2012)




----------



## Darth Nihilus (Feb 23, 2012)

>Seph and Nikushimi banned for a week for pointing out spelling mistakes
>Sylar banned for calling someone stupid
>Mali banned for calling someone a nitwit
>Crimson King permanently banned from the OBD for no reason at all

besuretoaddmoreexamplesasthisthreadgoesalong.jpg


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Feb 23, 2012)

I understand that it's hard to balance between being too strict and lax but banning for harmless insults or really insignificant things is hilarious and sad. I'm not saying don't stop a section or thread from getting out of control but banning people for calling out spelling mistakes or nitwit?Even in real life, none of these are punishable, this is school yard level stuff. Life is'nt all rainbows and sunshine, neither is the internet.


----------



## mali (Feb 23, 2012)

Its pretty pathetic to know that I can get to a mod just by calling them a nitwit. Naruto could have easily been the bigger person or deleted the post, but hey. Its cool though, its perfectly within his power. It just makes him look like an 8 year old though.


----------



## Black Leg Sanji (Feb 23, 2012)

Vegeta said:


> I agree with the troglodyte. We should be able to flame whoever we want.



 **


----------



## Judas (Feb 23, 2012)

Mali said:


> Its pretty pathetic to know that I can get to a mod just by calling them a nitwit. Naruto could have easily been the bigger person or deleted the post, but hey. Its cool though, its perfectly within his power. It just makes him look like an 8 year old though.



I learned that the word imbecile can't be used as a metaphor.


----------



## Black Leg Sanji (Feb 23, 2012)

Tranquil Fury said:


> but banning people for calling out spelling mistakes or nitwit?Even in real life, none of these are punishable, this is school yard level stuff. Life is'nt all rainbows and sunshine, neither is the internet.



If anything, social networks is much closer to RL in E-terms than a animu/mango forum (Duh)

Which makes the policy here even more hilarious


----------



## Basilikos (Feb 23, 2012)

Baroxio said:


> I always wondered, how do people become mods in the first place?


Masochistic tendencies.


----------



## jimbob631 (Feb 23, 2012)

I don't understand why discussion is removed in the first place, especially in the library.  If it has to do with the manga why close the thread?  If people are tired of the same threads, they don't have to read it.  What does it matter if posters get heated?  To be honest people find those types of debates the most interesting, the konoha library has been boring lately, filled with crack pot theories on tobi and the sage of six paths powers relating to senju and uchiha.


----------



## Almondsand (Feb 23, 2012)

I think it should be ok for people to express their distaste with a person, I mean it's healthy for society. All this protecting people feelings/likes/wants is really hindering to social development. A person should be able to say what they feel and react accordingly by writing it. Anyway, I had one experience with a Mod where he hacked my poll on my thread, I called him a 46 year old virgin that never tasted a vagina except the blood he had on his face when he was born. I wasn't banned but I guess we were equal in terms of him messing with my thread. I never insulted anyone in specific on the forums, but I've been tempted to do so to groups. I'm tolerant of other people views but the way the Moderators seem to be officiating, they seem to be a group of fascists/trolls. 

P.S
Lift Seph's ban, I don't see why he had to explain himself. His creativity is actually a great contribution to these forums, which I find becoming boring after joining a couple months ago.


----------



## Raidou Kuzunoha (Feb 23, 2012)

I'm getting sudden deja vu from this thread.


----------



## mali (Feb 23, 2012)

The suggestion thread was much better.


----------



## Seph (Feb 23, 2012)

Mali said:


> The suggestion thread was much better.



Don't bother posting if you won't contribute.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Feb 23, 2012)

Is everyone just ignoring what Naruko said to throw support in for Seph?



> edit: @Blazing and Seph re: the "spelling correction ban" - we never have banned JUST for correcting someones spelling. Ever. Now, if you have a history of flaming and or baiting and prior bans for same and you stop to make a post that is off topic and exists SOLELY to mock someones spelling, implying they are mentally deficient for making that misspelling and/or that all their arguments are suddenly invalid because of said spelling error....guess what. You didn't get banned for correcting their spelling. You got banned for trolling, posting off topic and flamebaiting. So stop bringing that up out of context. I know you would like to represent yourself as a beleaguered innocent, beset by horrible and intolerant mods, but we are never that petty or frivolous...there is always a history behind a ban and we are happy to spell it out. I just prefer to do so privately but since you keep bringing that particular event up, I decided to try and clear things up on our ban policies.


----------



## Seph (Feb 23, 2012)

> Is everyone just ignoring what Naruko said to throw support in for Seph?



They don't find her argument convincing.

Also, you're going off topic; this is a general policy thread, not a thread for you to whine about me. I'm just going to report you next time.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Feb 23, 2012)

Seph said:


> They don't find her argument convincing.
> 
> Also, you're going off topic; this is a general policy thread, not a thread for you to whine about me. I'm just going to report you next time.


Or maybe they haven't seen it and only been focusing on recent posts. Naruko clearly explained why you were banned.


----------



## Darth Nihilus (Feb 23, 2012)

Sounds more about the posting history of said user than the actual problem at hand when he was banned

Even though it isn't a problem

gamelwithchips.gif


----------



## navy (Feb 23, 2012)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Or maybe they haven't seen it



I found it convincing. Thanks, I just didnt see it.


----------



## Darth Nihilus (Feb 23, 2012)

> *we are never that petty or frivolous...there is always a history behind a  ban and we are happy to spell it out. *I just prefer to do so privately  but since you keep bringing that particular event up, I decided to try  and clear things up on our ban policies.



biggestmaybeinthefuckingworld.jpg


----------



## Seph (Feb 23, 2012)

Darth Nihilus said:


> biggestmaybeinthefuckingworld.jpg



Especially when that history consists of similarly trivial things, it's not even an argument.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Feb 23, 2012)

Seph said:


> Especially when that history consists of similarly trivial things, it's not even an argument.





> *Now, if you have a history of flaming and or baiting and prior bans for same and you stop to make a post that is off topic and exists SOLELY to mock someones spelling, implying they are mentally deficient for making that misspelling and/or that all their arguments are suddenly invalid because of said spelling error....guess what. You didn't get banned for correcting their spelling. You got banned for trolling, posting off topic and flamebaiting. So stop bringing that up out of context. I know you would like to represent yourself as a beleaguered innocent, beset by horrible and intolerant mods, but we are never that petty or frivolous...there is always a history behind a ban and we are happy to spell it out.* I just prefer to do so privately but since you keep bringing that particular event up, I decided to try and clear things up on our ban policies.


Seph, are you denying you do ANY of these things? You didn't answer when I first asked you.


----------



## Darth Nihilus (Feb 23, 2012)

Anyone else remember when Greed and Xellos never mentioned as to why Crimson King was permanently banned from the OBD in the first place

Or as to why JP/root was permed from the forum entirely

I know I do


----------



## Seph (Feb 23, 2012)

> Seph, are you denying you do ANY of these things? You didn't answer when I first asked you.



I wasn't pointing his spelling mistakes to mock him. I was trying to make him stop because it was really fucking irritating me.

Mods claim to read minds and know 100% when a user is flaming and such, but they don't know anything for sure.

This. Is. Off. Topic. I already reported you. Do you WANT to get banned? Stop posting.


----------



## navy (Feb 23, 2012)

Seph said:


> This. Is. Off. Topic. I already reported you. Do you WANT to get banned? Stop posting.



Post like these would only escalate the risk of flaming. Telling someone to stop posting isnt going to make them stop....

Perhaps you can see how/why your post/threads get flagged by mods. 

/rent-a-mod


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Feb 23, 2012)

Seph said:


> I wasn't pointing his spelling mistakes to mock him. I was trying to make him stop because it was really fucking irritating me.
> 
> Mods claim to read minds and know 100% when a user is flaming and such, but they don't know anything for sure.
> 
> This. Is. Off. Topic. I already reported you. Do you WANT to get banned? Stop posting.


I'm asking you an honest question since you didn't address Naruko's post. And I'm not flaming you or anything, Seph. 

The matter of this is is the crux of your argument against the mods. If you just addressed it instead of ignoring it, I wouldn't have brought it back up.

And it isn't off-topic since you brought up the reasons why you were banned, when Naruko addressed them. And even Navy said he didn't see it.

After all, you brought this up with your very first post:



> They fail to realize that people like to get passionate when they talk about the things they're fans of and when they talk about the things they enjoy. We have an entire board dedicated to "Fanclubs," which is clear evidence of the fact that some people literally worship their favorite characters. Why shouldn't we give people the opportunity to defend them as long as it doesn't harm anyone? Is not preventing this against the very purpose of the forum itself? *There's nothing wrong with heated discussion as long as there's no flaming.*
> 
> 
> Me and Nikushimi got banned for a week for pointing out Turrin's spelling mistakes.
> ...


----------



## Ryuzaki (Feb 23, 2012)

Basilikos said:


> Masochistic tendencies.



Yeah, that's what running any forum boils down to generally, you feel as if you're not doing enough so you ban a bunch of users with bad reputation with staff in general and everyone is happy


----------



## Joker J (Feb 23, 2012)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> I'm asking you an honest question since you didn't address Naruko's post. And I'm not flaming you or anything, Seph.
> 
> The matter of this is is the crux of your argument against the mods. If you just addressed it instead of ignoring it, I wouldn't have brought it back up.
> 
> ...



Oh yea he did say that. lol


----------



## Mintaka (Feb 23, 2012)

Ya know mods, one would suspect that having these threads popping up practically every month would be a WARNING SIGN.  Of course I suspect it isn't to you.


----------



## Spy_Smasher (Feb 23, 2012)

I suspect everyone ... and no one.


----------



## Seph (Feb 23, 2012)

Mintaka said:


> Ya know mods, one would suspect that having these threads popping up practically every month would be a WARNING SIGN.  Of course I suspect it isn't to you.



Good point.

To people who think "Oh, it's Seph, he's just a stupid troll..." I'm not the only one who thinks this way. There are dozens and dozens of people who have been complaining about this ridiculous problem.

I hope mods will finally start listening to people. Maybe I'll post my own suggestions later.


----------



## Sygurgh (Feb 24, 2012)

I don’t get you Seph. This topic exists in answer to your ban. SuperSaiyaMan12 tries to discuss the reasons behind your ban. You tell him he is off topic and threaten to report him? How does that work exactly? Is it some kind of pity party and he wasn’t invited?


----------



## Roman (Feb 24, 2012)

^ I have to agree considering this entire thread revolves around Seph's ban as an example of the situation on NF. The reason I asked questions earlier is to find out if the ban was actually fair or not. Calling someone for going offtopic by trying to address the reasons why your example is fair or not doesn't exactly help your argument. People like me want to know what really happened before making the decision whether or not the ban was fair. That was the entire point of me asking about how the ban system works (also so that everyone else could see) and it's honestly one of the best systems I've seen. 

What would help is if you address the things Naruko said to show that you don't have the history of flaming and baiting Naruko seems to point at. If your example of why NF needs some change is valid, then there is cause for concern, but I have never had any trouble with mods and admins here (a fuckload less than other places I've been to before at that, try visiting Bleachexile or Animesuki if you want to know more authoritarian(BE)/uncaring(Asuki) mods, I don't see either around here).


----------



## Seph (Feb 24, 2012)

Spy Smasher said that I could only post this thread if it was about general policy. I don't care about getting unbanned. I want the system to change. Now start going on topic.


----------



## ammarz (Feb 24, 2012)

This will mostly likely be my last post in this thread unless someone directly addresses me and brings novel insight. I just wanted to give my final thoughts about forum policy. As I said before, in my opinion, the current system is working fine. I would just like the mods to be a little more firm at times. Mods allow heated discussion all the time and if one goes in to Naruto Battledome at the moment, there are many threads with heated discussion.

Sometimes things get a little too heated and mods know that this is prone to happen time to time we are all human and can lose our cool. However, regular occurrences of over the top behaviour indicate a problem with the said poster. 

Maybe I am wrong, however, in my opinion, the main reason why some (not all of them) posters want to loosen flaming, name calling etc restrictions is that either they are unable to coherently articulate a reasoned response, and thus resort to other tactics; or because they think it's cool or enjoy annoying other poster, which I find a little childish to be honest.

In my opinion, if the mods decide to allow such behaviour, it will only lead to such activities spreading throughout the forum and the level of discussion and quality of posts will greatly decrease. Instead of posters discussing the manga, they will discuss themselves. I have learned a lot about the manga by having insightful discussions with other posters, particularly who have a point of view different than mine. It would be a shame to see such discussions replaced by war of words between opposing posters (which also happens nowadays, but is controlled). I would not like the balance to be disturbed.


----------



## Sygurgh (Feb 24, 2012)

Seph said:


> Spy Smasher said that I could only post this thread if it was about general policy. I don't care about getting unbanned. I want the system to change. Now start going on topic.



I have not been here for long but I have never seen anything wrong with the system. I had a few requests for the mods and they were quick to answer and polite no matter their answer. I insulted someone once and as a first offense received a warning but everything went fine afterwards. I know a little about you and the ones you defended in your posts and you all gave me a general bad impression (I?m not saying this to flame you, just to say that I might understand where the mods are coming from). Maybe the thing to do might be to temper your posts a little.


----------



## lazybum (Feb 24, 2012)

I agree in your situation that I'd be pretty pissed, I mean, you got banned but you didn't even use any taboo words, such as "fuck", or even the more moderate words like "idiot". And it is well-known that many people here are, let's say, rather narrow-minded and are closed to other opinions and thoughts that are contrary to their own, despite your provision of logical, sensible arguments backed by evidence and explanation, while their posts, regrettably, lack any.

I find it highly appalling as well, that one may be banned for simply correcting spelling mistakes. I shall give you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you pointed his mistakes out without being overly harsh. If you were rather gentle with your remonstrations, I see no reason why simple correction of others' mistakes should deserve a banning.

However, you should also look at the situation from the moderators' point of view. I imagine it is rather hard to control and manage a forum as large and extensive as NF. Hence, they tend to use draconian measures as a form of deterrance to any explosive disagreements. I am not supporting them, and am all for change, if they are indeed as unreasonable as you paint them to be. However, a measure of empathy might not be uncalled for, here.

I suggest you display the posts that got you banned for evidence, so that we may judge if the moderators are truly too harsh with you, and if they are, I will have your back in your cause to effect change. While I support your cause if you have indeed been treated unfairly, however, please take in mind that a truly open forum is inconceivable, and the best remedy to this problem, while definitely requiring the moderators to step back and review their usage of powers and their policies, is a slow but steady change to eliminate extreme measures bordering on the point of unreasonable behaviour, but continue to enforce order in NF.

Stay cool, Seph. And remember, the posts that got you into deep soup.
lazybum out.


----------



## Mister (Feb 24, 2012)

Sygurgh said:


> I don?t get you Seph. This topic exists in answer to your ban. SuperSaiyaMan12 tries to discuss the reasons behind your ban. You tell him he is off topic and threaten to report him? How does that work exactly? Is it some kind of pity party and he wasn?t invited?





Yoko Takeo said:


> ^ I have to agree considering this entire thread revolves around Seph's ban as an example of the situation on NF. The reason I asked questions earlier is to find out if the ban was actually fair or not. Calling someone for going offtopic by trying to address the reasons why your example is fair or not doesn't exactly help your argument. People like me want to know what really happened before making the decision whether or not the ban was fair. That was the entire point of me asking about how the ban system works (also so that everyone else could see) and it's honestly one of the best systems I've seen.
> 
> What would help is if you address the things Naruko said to show that you don't have the history of flaming and baiting Naruko seems to point at. If your example of why NF needs some change is valid, then there is cause for concern, but I have never had any trouble with mods and admins here (a fuckload less than other places I've been to before at that, try visiting Bleachexile or Animesuki if you want to know more authoritarian(BE)/uncaring(Asuki) mods, I don't see either around here).



In addition I would say this thread title is misleading. The examples seem to contain more examples of flamebait than die-hard flaming. Even some of the posters he cited were usually banned for flaming outright (rarely done) or for flamebait (mostly the case).

Most library and NBD regulars may recognise some posters cited as trolls or flamebaiters in some way. 

As such the thread title will should probably something more like "Intolerance to Flamebait and Flaming". 

It doesn't matter who agrees or who doesn't agree. If those who happen to agree happen to have a history, or reputation, for flamebating (or worse: flaming). Then I really don't see how that will sway the mods, I really don't.


----------



## Spy_Smasher (Feb 24, 2012)

Yeah, this thread is not about Seph's ban. 

Obviously, it was presented as evidence so it can be discussed but see if you guys can keep this debate in the realm of policy, rather than one specific incident in isolation.


----------



## Illairen (Feb 24, 2012)

In a forum with tens of thousands of users you need a strict system or order will perish completely.


----------



## Seph (Feb 24, 2012)

Illairen said:


> In a forum with tens of thousands of users you need a strict system or order will perish completely.



Um.. no. 

I'm not saying stop making the forum strict. I'm saying we should just be more lenient.

I'm saying we should give warnings for flaming, but not outright bans unless all those warnings add up.

So we WILL still be strict, just not as much.


----------



## Chainer (Feb 24, 2012)

Seph said:


> Um.. no.
> 
> I'm not saying stop making the forum strict. I'm saying we should just be more lenient.
> 
> ...



Which is pretty much what we already do . . .


----------



## butcher50 (Feb 24, 2012)

Illairen said:


> *In a forum with tens of thousands of users* you need a strict system or order will perish completely.



which is why any system will be flawed here, this forum needs to literally separate it's body parts.


----------



## lazybum (Feb 24, 2012)

Seph, could you just, please, pretty, cherry-and-whipped-cream please show us the instances where you felt the ban was too severe? It would be great for clearing up things, and can serve as evidence for the general populace of the NF to judge if the mods were too tough on you or not. If not, we're not doing anything constructive here. And to answer some mod, Spy Smasher?, on how this thread should be on policy instead of instances, I don't read policy. Never had too, I assumed it's simple common sense: don't be offensive and don't give out spoilers. But no matter how good the policies are, they are still enforced by people, and if the people are too heavy-handed, there will be dissidence arising from the general populace. 

Seph, I would also like it if you could be slightly more civil to your fellow forum users. SuperSaiyaMan12, as Sygurgh pointed out, was simply trying to clarify things to validate your point or, well, invalidate it. He was not being offensive to you, unless you call being critical in one's thinking and reading an offensive habit. However, you threatened to report him for simply questioning you when you did not put up evidence. If you have already put up the evidences, allow me to apologize and direct me to them, I don't particularly care to dig through 11 pages.


----------



## Seph (Feb 24, 2012)

Chainer said:


> Which is pretty much what we already do . . .



No, it's not. Especially not to members like me with histories.



> Seph, could you just, please, pretty, cherry-and-whipped-cream please show us the instances where you felt the ban was too severe?



I'll can't.. mods delete them.



> However, you threatened to report him for simply questioning you when you did not put up evidence.



No, I threatened to report him because he was going off-topic.


----------



## Chainer (Feb 24, 2012)

Seph said:


> No, it's not. Especially not to members like me with histories.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, it is . . .

Where do you think your 'history' came from if not from your warnings?


----------



## Seph (Feb 24, 2012)

Chainer said:


> Yes, it is . . .
> 
> Where do you think your 'history' came from if not from your warnings?



After my 3-day ban, I no longer received ANY warnings from any mods.

I'm not making this up.


----------



## Chainer (Feb 24, 2012)

Seph said:


> After my 3-day ban, I no longer received ANY warnings from any mods.
> 
> I'm not making this up.



Erm . . . past your first warning, you should really know better after that. Bans _also_ serve as warnings against further negative behavior.


----------



## Seph (Feb 24, 2012)

Chainer said:


> Erm . . . past your first warning, you should really know better after that. Bans _also_ serve as warnings against further negative behavior.



Yeah, I should know better than to pick on someone's spelling mistakes. 

I never expected that I'd get banned for stupid things like that.


----------



## Chainer (Feb 24, 2012)

Seph said:


> Yeah, I should know better than to pick on someone's spelling mistakes.
> 
> I never expected that I'd get banned for stupid things like that.



I would argue this, but I can already tell that it's futile.


----------



## ammarz (Feb 24, 2012)

Seph said:


> Yeah, I should know better than to pick on someone's spelling mistakes.
> 
> I never expected that I'd get banned for stupid things like that.



I wanted to stay away, however, I really don't get you Seph. You threaten and report posters for talking about this particular issue and tell them it is not about one issue, but policy in general. Then you bring up this particular issue yourself. 

Naruko has already explained the rational behind this incident. You should address her points if you want to talk about this issue.


----------



## Spy_Smasher (Feb 24, 2012)

lazybum said:


> And to answer some mod, Spy Smasher?, on how this thread should be on policy instead of instances, I don't read policy. Never had too, I assumed it's simple common sense: don't be offensive and don't give out spoilers. But no matter how good the policies are, they are still enforced by people, and if the people are too heavy-handed, there will be dissidence arising from the general populace.


What I mean is, keep the debate about the mods and their policies and not about Seph. The Konoha Library _is_ more heavy-handed than other sections. That is not a matter for debate; it is a concrete truth. This is not an issue of individual personalities. The KL staff run their section a certain way based off of their perception of what the section requires to be at its best.


----------



## Seph (Feb 24, 2012)

Chainer said:


> I would argue this, but I can already tell that it's futile.



They could've given me a warning. Could've told me that if they ever saw me flaming or flamebaiting again, I'd get banned. I'm pretty sure that would've worked a lot better.

It'll not only work better for me, but for others in the long run.

Give me a good reason for just banning me outright without warning me.



> I really don't get you Seph. You threaten and report posters for talking about this particular issue and tell them it is not about one issue, but policy in general. Then you bring up this particular issue yourself.



We ARE talking about general policy. I'm arguing that warnings are better in the long run.

Please stop posting if you are just going to keep on talking about me.


----------



## Mister (Feb 24, 2012)

Seph said:


> Yeah, I should know better than to pick on someone's spelling mistakes.
> 
> I never expected that I'd get banned for stupid things like that.



This time don't dodge the question: did you do that to Turrin to troll/flame bait him? 

So long as you're aware that saying 'yes' means the mods aren't intolerant to flaming as you propound. They are intolerant to flamebating/trolling more so, which is what the example you just used is.

In that case you probably "should know better than to pick on someone's spelling mistakes".

Doing things like that takes thread off-topic, and violates the rules on trolling and flamebaiting. As a library regular you should also know that trolling and flamebaiting are *very* common in the library, hence the heavy iron fist the mods seem to be using in that section.


----------



## Chainer (Feb 24, 2012)

After x number of warnings, people stop deserving them.


----------



## mali (Feb 24, 2012)

I lost hope for the mods when they tried to get /root fired from his job.

Thats just sick.


----------



## Talis (Feb 24, 2012)

Yeah, and mods should also stop deleting 95% of the threads, ok double threads are annoying, but whats the point in deleting a thread if it has been made for once a few years ago?


----------



## Mist Puppet (Feb 24, 2012)

loool3 said:


> Yeah, and mods should also stop deleting 95% of the threads, ok double threads are annoying, but whats the point in deleting a thread if it has been made for once a few years ago?



Depends on the topic really. 

The fiftieth "Itachi is stronger than Jiraiya" or "Tobi's identity is Obito!" threads get annoying, and the posts in them regurgitate the same talking points in every other thread made before it. 

If you have a new, fresh perspective on the topic, I don't think it'll be deleted.


----------



## Ryuzaki (Feb 24, 2012)

Chainer said:


> After x number of warnings, people stop deserving them.


To be fair, I only had one warning (in a PM, a few months ago) from Winchester about a similar issue (language control/hostility in debating) but I got section banned from N.B.D. without any warnings this time for a week (Feb 6th - Feb. 13th). 

If that single warning from mid-November amounts to X, then I'm fine with it. If not, then there needs to be some type of consistency with this, that keeps a record of these things. Perhaps, PM'ing about warnings should be mandatory.

Now, I'm not here to complain about my ban, I'm here because I would like to prevent this from happening in the future again. In the past, I've always been banned for stupid stuff (e.g. spoiler picture in sig).


----------



## Psychic (Feb 24, 2012)

I like NF back in the old days, when people used to argue all the time. The heated arguments, debates, and yes flame wars, were the reason people would wake up and sign onto NF for.


----------



## Tengu (Feb 24, 2012)

I remember the good days when we still had Konoha Park, i think that was the name where you could post all kind of funny threads, mode should really calm down a bit.


----------



## Basilikos (Feb 24, 2012)

Illairen said:


> In a forum with tens of thousands of users you need a strict system or order will perish completely.


Define "strict" and "order".


----------



## Drums (Feb 24, 2012)

I agree that there should be more warnings before one gets banned(but as it's stated here by a mod themselves, there are).


Aside that, If you're going to flame someone, be prepared to face the consequenses, whatever they might be. It's not about being in kindergarden, it's about having manners, whether you're using the net, or interacting with people out in real life, whether you're 8 years old or 20.


I don't see how this promotes the "genuine" feeling you spoke of, Seph. If you were that honest and "genuine" in real life as well, you'd get yourself in some drama in the best situation and a physical fight in the worst(or to put it blantly "you'd get your behind handed to you"). 

Coming on the net with the purpose of flaming/trolling people is not being genuine, it's cowardice. While I understand that all of us snap out at one point or another, both irl and on the net, thinking that you should be entitled to and should get away with such a behaviour is actually similar to if not worse than kindergarden way of thought.

Moreover, I think it's contradictive how you complain about intolerance when you, yourself, don't seem that tolerant with other people, in the first place(based on the examples you've brought up).

In conclusion,  I have no sympathy or words of agreement to offer here.
Apparently, you think being nice and mature is retarded and uncool. And I think being rude/troll is immature.

Excuse me if I seem off-topic to you, but this is just my take on the issue, _based_ on the examples you brought up in the OP.


----------



## Zoan Marco (Feb 24, 2012)

Chainer said:


> After x number of warnings, people stop deserving them.



Really? I've only gotten a warning once, and it didn't really count since it was a counter flame for being flamed first, after that I've been banned twice without warning.


----------



## Atlantic Storm (Feb 24, 2012)

> count since it was a counter flame for being flamed first



Two wrongs don't make a right, sir.


----------



## Chainer (Feb 24, 2012)

Zoan Marco said:


> Really? I've only gotten a warning once, and it didn't really count since it was a counter flame for being flamed first, after that I've been banned twice without warning.



Yes, really.

And yeah, they may have flamed first, but have you never heard the expression that two wrongs don't make a right? 

Furthermore, I know for a fact that you've gotten more than one warning for flaming, since you were warned again for flaming in reputation.


----------



## Zoan Marco (Feb 24, 2012)

Chainer said:


> Yes, really.
> 
> And yeah, they may have flamed first, but have you never heard the expression that two wrongs don't make a right?
> 
> Furthermore, I know for a fact that you've gotten more than one warning for flaming, since you were warned again for flaming in reputation.



Doesn't make a right but Naruko didn't ban me for it so there you go. I was never warned for flaming in reputation, I made a thread about it myself because I did flame him because he kept flaming me in posts. Anyway 2 warnings (which it was only 1) aren't enough to never warn again.



Atlantic Storm said:


> Two wrongs don't make a right, sir.



Thanks for pointing out the thing that matters the less because you don't have any argument for the real point I'm trying to make.


----------



## Distracted (Feb 24, 2012)

So... basically people have selective memories about things.  I'm not aware of every situation, and maybe there is an example where a mod really did go overboard on someone.

Mind you, I've never seen anyone remember a time when a mod went easy on them.  They just chalk it up to 'how things are supposed to be' and when they fuck up, and the full weight of the punishment lands on them... they end up just trying to argue their way out of the consequences.  I guess I can't blame someone for wanting to get out of a ban though.

So basically, what I've gotten from seph is "This one ban seemed petty to me!" and a bunch of OBD members saying "This stuff seemed petty to me!"  Then we explain them, then they don't accept the explanation and wait a few posts and bring up the same examples again.

I don't even see how this is related to the library anymore, it's just people complaining about bans they've gotten and warnings they don't think they deserved... even when they describe the warning and what got them said warning...

and lol getting someone to lose their job done by the mods.  I've seen people say some pretty horrible things to each other... joking or otherwise.  Yet when a mod says something hyperbolic in private and it gets out suddenly the mods are all boogeymen out to get you.

People take this place way too seriously.



Zoan Marco said:


> Doesn't make a right but Naruko didn't ban me for it so there you go. I was never warned for flaming in reputation, I made a thread about it myself because I did flame him because he kept flaming me in posts. Anyway 2 warnings (which it was only 1) aren't enough to never warn again.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for pointing out the thing that matters the less because you don't have any argument for the real point I'm trying to make.



You are arguing with something that isn't there.  He said after 'x' amount of warnings you don't deserve it anymore.  If I've been banned 4 times for flaming, if I flame again I'm probably not going to just get a warning.

Doesn't quite equate to the two warnings you got, the point is that you can get a warning depending on the situation, but if you've done the same thing over and over again eventually we stop warning and just go for the bans.

If you stop for a second, and imagine telling someone not to do something over and over again you'd realize you'd do the same thing.


----------



## Atlantic Storm (Feb 24, 2012)

> Thanks for pointing out the thing that matters the less because you don't have any argument for the real point I'm trying to make.



I've only read this page and one other one, and the only 'real point' I've seen you trying to make is how your ban was unjustified and how you're being unfairly treated:



> He hasn't seen or gone through the bullshit that me and many other members have been through, and if he has then he's just wanking mods to be on their good side.





> the mods have done tons of bullshit to many people and he's saying they haven't because they didn't to him.



The crux of the matter is, you're not really making an argument for any real point. You're just complaining about your bans, and if you're telling the truth in that previous post, then you deserve that ban because as I said before: two wrongs don't make a right. Flaming in the first place is bad, but retaliating also puts you in the wrong.


----------



## Distracted (Feb 24, 2012)

The entire time I've been here and as far back as I can tell into the forum's history, retaliation to a flame or flamebait is punished along with the initial flame or flamebait.  Mods don't claim to be perfect - - except Spy_Smasher, for he is - - but we do our best to follow that policy.

You can say you don't like the policy, you can say you want it to change... but to get upset that we enforce it is ludicrous.


----------



## Zoan Marco (Feb 24, 2012)

@*Atlantic Storm* There you go again, pointing out everything but my actual point.


----------



## Atlantic Storm (Feb 24, 2012)

I've scanned your posts in the thread and I've yet to see another point you've been trying to make. This isn't meant to sound rude or sarcastic, but could you explain what your actual point is?


----------



## Zoan Marco (Feb 24, 2012)

Atlantic Storm said:


> I've scanned your posts in the thread and I've yet to see another point you've been trying to make. This isn't meant to sound rude or sarcastic, but could you explain what your actual point is?



Those posts you quoted, they had more than that, I was arguing with that guy because he only defends mod because he hasn't gotten the bullshit ban hammer, maybe if you looked at my full post you could see my argument.  My other point is that 1 or 2 warnings isn't enough to never warn again.


----------



## Chainer (Feb 24, 2012)

How many warnings, then?

How many times do we have to let people call someone a 'fucking idiot', or 'retard' before we can punish them for breaking the rules?

That's ridiculous.


----------



## Distracted (Feb 24, 2012)

It all depends on the timing of the warnings.  If you get two in short order, than you'll probably get a short ban.  If you're good in the courts, more often than not you'll be let out really quickly over your first ban.

Otherwise I just see you complaining that you felt you deserved more warnings.  Maybe, maybe not... that's kind of up to context and circumstances.


----------



## ammarz (Feb 24, 2012)

Chainer said:


> How many warnings, then?
> 
> How many times do we have to let people call someone a 'fucking idiot', or 'retard' before we can punish them for breaking the rules?
> 
> That's ridiculous.



Depends on the situation. But, in the examples you quoted, one is more than enough in my opinion.

Chainer, you are getting in to a never ending argument.


----------



## Chainer (Feb 24, 2012)

ammarz said:


> Depends on the situation. But, in the examples you quoted, one is more than enough in my opinion.
> 
> Chainer, you are getting in to a never ending argument.



It's okay, I mod the Battledome. :33

But yeah, I have said my piece, so I won't linger in this thread any longer.


----------



## Distracted (Feb 24, 2012)

ammarz said:


> Depends on the situation. But, in the examples you quoted, one is more than enough in my opinion.
> 
> Chainer, *you are getting in to a never ending argument.*



If I ever have to explain what it's like to mod this place to anyone in the future, I'm going to say that sentence word for word.


----------



## Zoan Marco (Feb 24, 2012)

Chainer said:


> How many warnings, then?
> 
> How many times do we have to let people call someone a 'fucking idiot', or 'retard' before we can punish them for breaking the rules?
> 
> That's ridiculous.



More warnings, you guys think I (And the rest of NF) just flame people because they disagree with me? No, I flame them if they're being extremely douchey, trolls, flamebaiters and they deserve it. Not saying flaming is still right but you have to understand some circumstances.


----------



## Distracted (Feb 24, 2012)

We do look at context and it should be apparent we care a great deal about your history before we take actions towards you.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Feb 24, 2012)

Zoan Marco said:


> More warnings, you guys think I (And the rest of NF) just flame people because they disagree with me? No, I flame them if they're being extremely douchey, trolls, flamebaiters and they deserve it. Not saying flaming is still right but you have to understand some circumstances.


Flaming is never right, it hurts your argument and credibility since it sinks you to the level that the trolls start off at. Its better to keep a 'high ground' so you don't get pulled into the trap which the flame baiters want.


----------



## Zoan Marco (Feb 24, 2012)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Flaming is never right, it hurts your argument and credibility since it sinks you to the level that the trolls start off at. Its better to keep a 'high ground' so you don't get pulled into the trap which the flame baiters want.



I never said flaming was right, I actually said quite the opposite.


----------



## Basilikos (Feb 24, 2012)

Distracted said:


> People take this place way too seriously.


Mods are arguably guilty of this as well. Banning someone on the spot for saying "nitwit", for example.


----------



## Seph (Feb 24, 2012)

Chainer said:


> How many warnings, then?
> 
> How many times do we have to let people call someone a 'fucking idiot', or 'retard' before we can punish them for breaking the rules?
> 
> That's ridiculous.



I'm thinking of a 10 point scale. This point scale would drop by 1 or 2 each time that person got banned.

Major insults like fucking idiot or retard would give you 5 points. 

Minor insults like nitwit would give you 2 points.



> So basically, what I've gotten from seph is "This one ban seemed petty to me!" and a bunch of OBD mods saying "This stuff seemed petty to me!" Then we explain them, then they don't accept the explanation and wait a few posts and bring up the same examples again.



We don't accept the explanations because they're similarly petty.

A history? So what? Why does a history negate the fact that one should get warnings before getting banned outright?


----------



## Atlantic Storm (Feb 24, 2012)

Seph, the interval between the times you are punished is also taken into account as well. For example, if the last time you were banned for flaming was, say, two years ago, you'd probably be let off with a much lighter ban if the last time you were banned was quite recent. I used to get into signature bans quite frequently back in the day, and it got to the point where the next ban would be permanent. However, since that time, I've not had another signature seal, so if I ever do breech that rule again the punishment wouldn't be the same as it would have been...something something years ago.


----------



## Seph (Feb 24, 2012)

> Seph, the interval between the times you are punished is also taken into account as well.



Then the warnings can last a few months or so.


----------



## Jυstin (Feb 24, 2012)

I'm a ridiculously huge Itachi fan (look at my post history, more so in the NBD's Base Itachi vs Base Kakashi, Itachi vs Hashirama, and other Itachi battle threads, friends of Niku, Grimm, Div, and was asked to join the King's Army when it first formed (I think I did join it for a while too...)) or in most Itachi threads in the Library when I care to visit it. Anyway, my fan loyalties are well-know, though I haven't been the target of any overly strict mod-cracking. Then again in the past there was a time...

I agree that something needs to change, though I'd like to give credit to quite a few of the mods who I can't find reason to doubt their fairness. I've seen Chainer post a lot in this thread, and I've seen his mod actions. He was a good pick for becoming a mod, as he does an incredible job.

I haven't seen a lot of other mods' work at hand, as I'm usually now in the NBD more compared to other sections. I've seen my share of bad work and power abuse at hand - not recently, as I've been largely inactive, so I doubt it has any relevance now, nor can I remember exactly who and where it was, or what it was. But it did, and most likely still does, exist. Even staff members are human, and you're bound to find some corruption. Doesn't make it tolerable, but it's a fact that it'll happen within a human system.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.


----------



## Raiden (Feb 24, 2012)

Seph, would you happy:

a. if mods stated clearly a *specific *the amount of official warnings you can have before punishment? 

b. designated a *specific* time period before those warnings "expired."

Admittedly, in principle, these would be more rules, and you're clearly against strictness. But I think the "suddenness" of your punishments is partly because there the system for warnings themselves could be clearer. 




Chainer said:


> How many warnings, then?
> 
> How many times do we have to let people call someone a 'fucking idiot', or 'retard' before we can punish them for breaking the rules?
> 
> That's ridiculous.





Seph said:


> There's nothing wrong with heated discussion as long as there's no flaming.




Only solution I can think of are unofficial warnings (mods did this a lot back in the day). Basically, if a discussion starts to get tense, mods post telling everyone in the thread to take it easy. Perhaps if we saw this more freqently in the library....that is, if exchanges do not include the expletives Chainer talked about lol.


----------



## Seph (Feb 24, 2012)

> a. if mods stated clearly a specific the amount of official warnings you can have before punishment?
> 
> b. designated a specific time period before those warnings "expired."



That's what I've been saying since the beginning, yeah.

It's just more complicated rules. It's less strict though.


----------



## Raiden (Feb 24, 2012)

Okay. So unless this was discussed already, it would be nice if a mod could comment on that proposal.


----------



## Mister (Feb 24, 2012)

Seph said:


> A history? So what? Why does a history negate the fact that one should get warnings before getting banned outright?





Distracted said:


> We do look at context and it should be apparent *we care a great deal about your history before we take action*s towards you.





Chainer said:


> How many warnings, then?
> 
> How many times do we have to let people call someone a 'fucking idiot', or 'retard' before we can punish them for breaking the rules?
> 
> That's ridiculous.





Chainer said:


> After x number of warnings, people stop deserving them.




Look at these replies and the ones before. They *give* you warnings, bans may count as them. 
If one's history *alongside* their latest action shows that the warnings are futile - the won't listen to the rules. Then no warnings would be given and the member would, and should, have the relevant privileges taken aaway from them. 

There isn't a point of warning brick walls that will just brush off the warning. _That_ is the point Chainer and Distracted seem to make.

If a member gets a privileged permanently removed, the mods have made it clear that the member has still carried on breaking the rules *despite* their warnings. 

The 'soft' flames you reference _do_ count as baiting. If a user plans to bait users into a flame war and consistently do so after being banned for said conduct previously. Then there's no reason for the mods to be tolerant of it.


----------



## Seph (Feb 24, 2012)

> Look at these replies and the ones before. They give you warnings, bans may count as them.



The problem is that I thought I'd get warned for *very* minor things like correcting someone's spelling mistake.

I don't know what exactly is banworthy and what isn't anymore.

Which is why I think we should start giving warnings more often.


----------



## Mister (Feb 24, 2012)

Seph said:


> The problem is that I thought I'd get warned for *very* minor things like correcting someone's spelling mistake.



Which is why you never answer the question when asked why you did it? 
You doing it just to flamebait and troll the user in question would certainly be banworthy. *However *assuming there was some other reason, other than the aforesaid, that you chose to do it: mention it. 
If it was more innocent than trolling/flamebaiting, then it would certainly help your case.



> I don't know what exactly is banworthy and what isn't anymore.
> 
> Which is why I think we should start giving warnings more often.



It is actually pretty simple: you troll/spam/flame/flamebait = banworthy stuff.

Chainer outlined it well: how many times are you going to warn someone for trolling and flamebaiting before punishing them? Or what suggests that some members deserve _another_ warning after X* amount of warnings?

*I imagine that the mods wouldn't unreasonably ban people for long periods, or indefinitely, if X wasn't a reasonable number e.g. 3 or 5. 
If a member needs to be warned more than 3-5 times, then its probable that they won't clean up their act.

Even so, I don't see why you can't talk your way out of a ban after some time of showing that you have cleaned up your act.


----------



## Seph (Feb 24, 2012)

> Which is why you never answer the question when asked why you did it?
> You doing it just to flamebait and troll the user in question would certainly be banworthy. However assuming there was some other reason, other than the aforesaid, that you chose to do it: mention it.
> If it was more innocent than trolling/flamebaiting, then it would certainly help your case.





Spy_Smasher said:


> What I mean is, keep the debate about the mods and their policies and not about Seph. The Konoha Library _is_ more heavy-handed than other sections. That is not a matter for debate; it is a concrete truth. This is not an issue of individual personalities. The KL staff run their section a certain way based off of their perception of what the section requires to be at its best.



This debate isn't about me. Stop changing the subject.



> It is actually pretty simple: you troll/spam/flame/flamebait = banworthy stuff.



Do you really think telling someone their spelling mistakes is flamebait?

It seems we have different definitions of what flamebait is.


----------



## Chainer (Feb 24, 2012)

Seph said:


> This debate isn't about me. Stop changing the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Guess I'm not actually done.

Yeah, it is. It's in the rules that you shouldn't mock other users for their spelling or dyslexia.


----------



## Seph (Feb 24, 2012)

> Guess I'm not actually done.
> 
> Yeah, it is. It's in the rules that you shouldn't mock other users for their spelling or dyslexia.



I can understand giving me a warning, but banning me for a week?

This is the problem with this forum. After a certain point you totally stop giving warnings. Even if we try not to flame, after a certain point, you find every little reason to slap on a ban with no warning whatsoever.


----------



## Gunners (Feb 24, 2012)

Seph said:


> Do you really think telling someone their spelling mistakes is flamebait?


If you handed it a piece of work to your tutor and he/she marked it then put your mistakes on a projector for the class to see how would you respond? 

It really depends on the situation but 9 times out of 10 it is a flame bait. It is a condescending and tactless act where an abrasive response is foreseeable.


----------



## Mister (Feb 24, 2012)

Seph said:


> This debate isn't about me. Stop changing the subject.



Then stop bringing up your experience. Especially when you're going to try to make it seem like it was an unjust ban. Don't bring it up rather than hide behind _"stop changing the topic"_ in response to being questioned about your intention regarding said conduct.



> Do you really think telling someone their spelling mistakes is flamebait?
> 
> It seems we have different definitions of what flamebait is.





Chainer said:


> Guess I'm not actually done.
> 
> Yeah, it is. It's in the rules that you shouldn't mock other users for their spelling or dyslexia.



There you go.

Flamebait, as the name suggests is trying to bait someone into flaming. Or getting them angry; angry enough to flame.

It can be argued that by the very act of mocking a user's spelling, you did have the intention to get them all riled up so they would explode. 

Now, seeing as Chainer just told us that its quite clearly within the rules _not_ to mock anyone for their spelling. It probably isn't a good idea to consistently bring up the "correcting a user for their spelling" example to defend your point.


----------



## Seph (Feb 24, 2012)

> If you handed it a piece of work to your tutor and he/she marked it then put your mistakes on a projector for the class to see how would you respond?



Being a tutor is a position of power. A position of authority. That position of authority gives someone's statements more credibility, and therefore they are taken more seriously. 

I had no authority over Turrin whatsoever. Turrin had no reason to take anything I said seriously.

If mods flamed, that'd be A LOT worse than mere members flaming.


----------



## Gunners (Feb 24, 2012)

Seph said:


> Being a tutor is a position of power. A position of authority. That position of authority gives someone's statements more credibility, and therefore they are taken more seriously.
> 
> I had no authority over Turrin whatsoever. Turrin had no reason to take anything I said seriously.


Yeah I was not trying to draw your attention to the relationship between parties and who is in a position of power. What I wanted to draw your attention to was the nature of publicly correcting someone. 

As I said in my previous post ( Which you conveniently overlooked) it is condescending and tactless and an abrasive response is foreseeable.


----------



## Mister (Feb 24, 2012)

Seph said:


> I had no authority over Turrin whatsoever. Turrin had no reason to take anything I said seriously.



Mocking a user for his spelling in the Konoha Library breaks the rules covering flamebaiting, staying on topic and possibly trolling. 

Your example considers one view: sure he had no reason to take what you said seriously. On the other hand, you really had no reason to mock his spelling. In doing so - I'll assume in Konoha Library - you broke the three rules I just mentioned.

Then factor in how it really is against the rules to mock someone for their spelling. 

Though, I don't want to risk hinging on this example. Especially when it may risk the chance of this turning into a thread about you.
So if you could, would you kindly mention _other_ examples of unjust banning?


----------



## Seph (Feb 24, 2012)

Gunners said:


> Yeah I was not trying to draw your attention to the relationship between parties and who is in a position of power. What I wanted to draw your attention to was the nature of publicly correcting someone.
> 
> As I said in my previous post ( Which you conveniently overlooked) it is condescending and tactless and an abrasive response is foreseeable.



Look, there's a huge difference btw. a tutor correcting someone and a person of equal authority correcting someone. It's not the same thing and yet you think it is. The former is far worse than the latter.

Let's agree, for the sake of argument, that it was condescending. Why didn't the mods give me a warning?

Why do the mods in general have an impediment for giving warnings? That will make it a lot more difficult to get banned, and not only that; it'll also make people behave better, imo. If they know they're near a ban then they'll act better.


----------



## Mister (Feb 24, 2012)

Seph said:


> Let's agree, for the sake of argument, that it was condescending. Why didn't the mods give me a warning?



Were you given X amount of warnings for similar behaviour in the past? One of the mods here quite clearly said after a certain amount, people probably stop deserving them. Coupled with another saying they really do care about looking into your history.




> Why do the mods in general have an impediment for giving warnings?



Did you not see two mods touch on this?



Chainer said:


> How many warnings, then?
> 
> How many times do we have to let people call someone a 'fucking idiot', or 'retard' before we can punish them for breaking the rules?
> 
> That's ridiculous.





Distracted said:


> It all depends on the timing of the warnings.  If you get two in short order, than you'll probably get a short ban.  If you're good in the courts, more often than not you'll be let out really quickly over your first ban.


----------



## Seph (Feb 24, 2012)

> Did you not see two mods touch on this?



There's a difference between calling someone a "fucking idiot" and "not the sharpest pencil in the pencil box."


----------



## Chainer (Feb 24, 2012)

Seph said:


> There's a difference between calling someone a "fucking idiot" and "not the sharpest pencil in the pencil box."



Once again, you're misrepresenting the actual events.


----------



## Seph (Feb 24, 2012)

Chainer said:


> Once again, you're misrepresenting the actual events.



Okay, this is it. This is the final time I'm going to talk about this because I'm sick of people forcing me to go off-topic. Here are all the details:

1. I made a topic about "Edo Rinnegan Madara is not top tier." This is something Turrin himself said. I didn't make this thread to flamebait; I thought it was funny and would make people laugh. Note that I didn't put the spelling error in the title, which is proof of the fact that I wasn't flamebaiting.
2. Nikushimi comes in and says you forgot to put "Rannigan." He gets banned for a week.
3. I quote Turrin's essay and highlight all the spelling mistakes because I was getting irritated with him saying "Rannigan" and "Uzamaki" every paragraph. A few minutes after this, I get banned for a week.

So, no, I was not trying to flamebait him. Was I laughing at his Madara not being top tier idea? Yes, I was, but not at his expense.

And that's all the details I can think of now.


----------



## Ryuzaki (Feb 24, 2012)

The example this thread serves is an apparent and obvious lack of communication between the moderating staff (whomever that maybe) and the banned user (in this case, Seph). When an administrator comes in here (*Taxman*) and has to explain the circumstances of your ban, it's obvious that there is a disconnect by the banning moderator and the member. While, now Seph holds his own fate in his hands, in that after Taxman's explanation, he is free to contest the ban or let it live.

What this thread should be used for is find a method to improve this communication and prevent threads like this from popping up in the future. The current system works but probably needs to be tweaked somewhat, here are some things that could be used to regulate a better standard for communication:

Some Moderators post-in a thread and others don't when the thread is closed. It gets a bit annoying especially if you started the thread. This would require closing any threads to be given ample reasoning.


This would be a better method to manage the Naruto Battledome, in my opinion, if not the best. As discussions get heated, we probably need a break at times (and most of us don't even realize it). This would work wonders, as it's a harsher punishment but to a lesser degree. Better to be banned from a thread, then a section or the forum in general.

*Infraction System:*
Use the infraction system not for banning, but for warnings. It would be a way to keep a log everything. These settings can enforced, manipulated and edited by an administrator in the ACP or require moderators to send out warnings via PM or VM, which ever is more convenient as it's logged down.

All of these add-ons should work with your current version of vBulletin 3.7.2, as they are designed for it. The amount of queries and cpu usage it would add are less than negligible, and I'm sure with a community that's this large, it is always a concern. Perhaps, this should shed some light in making things easier. 

I'll follow this post up with some other suggestions, but it's good that you guys are open for suggestions.


----------



## Gunners (Feb 24, 2012)

> Look, there's a huge difference btw. a tutor correcting someone and a person of equal authority correcting someone. It's not the same thing and yet you think it is. The former is far worse than the latter.


Again, I don't want you to focus on the difference in position I want you to focus on the act alone. Maybe it would make it easiest if I said, ''How would you feel if a student highlighted all of your mistakes and projected them for a lecture theater to see. 



> Let's agree, for the sake of argument, that it was condescending. Why didn't the mods give me a warning?


It can be argued that the ban itself was a warning. ''You do that again and the punishment will be more severe''. 

What you want is a verbal warning which is given to all the members in the form of rules. 



> Why do the mods in general have an impediment for giving warnings? That will make it a lot more difficult to get banned, and not only that; it'll also make people behave better, imo. If they know they're near a ban then they'll act better.


They don't have a problem handing out warnings, in my honest opinion they do so when it isn't exactly necessary. I can understand warnings for things relating to spoilers in signatures and double posting where the person may genuinely be worried but when the person knows or ought to know that they are fucking up a warning is unnecessary. What you want is for the mods to say ''Hey Seph we're on to your trolling, cut if off until the heat dies down''.


----------



## Seph (Feb 24, 2012)

> Again, I don't want you to focus on the difference in position I want you to focus on the act alone. Maybe it would make it easiest if I said, ''How would you feel if a student highlighted all of your mistakes and projected them for a lecture theater to see.



Real life /=/ online.

If it were a bunch of strangers online doing the same thing to me I wouldn't mind.



> It can be argued that the ban itself was a warning. ''You do that again and the punishment will be more severe''.
> 
> What you want is a verbal warning which is given to all the members in the form of rules.



But I don't get any chance for trial and error. I make one minor mistake (I think that what I was doing was too minor for a ban) and it gets me banned. Don't you think that's a bit unfair? If I got a warning (stating that even the most minor flaming is against the rules), I would've stopped.

Warnings are more effective than bans. Warnings hang in there like a nugget of poo on your anus, not leaving for months and months. It's like a constant threat. A ban on the other hand is just a sudden, unpredictable bomb. A warning would control members much better.

I'm sure other people would think the same way as well.



> What you want is a verbal warning which is given to all the members in the form of rules.



The rules are insanely ambiguous.. that's barely a warning. It's just an ambiguous guideline for you to follow.


----------



## Mister (Feb 24, 2012)

Seph said:


> There's a difference between calling someone a "fucking idiot" and "not the sharpest pencil in the pencil box."



Was the intention to troll/flamebait? That is quite crucial in terms of why a member would or would not get banned. 

If a member is trolling/flamebaiting blatantly (as the quotes you suggested would generally suggest), and has a pretty interesting history with doing that. I really don't see why they'd _not_ deserve a ban despite prior warnings.

Further, a discussion wouldn't get anywhere if you're not going to at least try to process what the mods just said. 
For example: you still don't seem to believe that even comments such as _"not the sharpest pencil in the pencil box"_ can be considered flamebait in certain situations. 

Think of a situation in say Konoha Library: 
Fandom A makes a comment, Fandom B responds. The discussion gets a little heated, and one of them decides to whip out the pencil quote to purposely agitate the other side.
The one who wiped out the quote clearly had, or at some point developed, the intent to annoy the other side irregardless of the topic.


----------



## Gunners (Feb 24, 2012)

> Real life /=/ online.
> 
> If it were a bunch of strangers online doing the same thing to me I wouldn't mind.


That statement is not universal and it is incorrect to say that we are all a bunch of strangers online. People form or place their own identity online and interact with others ie. they know the people on this site. 


> But I don't get any chance for trial and error. I make one minor mistake (I think that what I was doing was too minor for a ban) and it gets me banned. Don't you think that's a bit unfair? If I got a warning (stating that even the most minor flaming is against the rules), I would've stopped.


You have been given a chance for trial and error. You were banned and now you have the chance to not make that mistake again. If you were perm banned I'd think it was unfair but that isn't the case. 


> Warnings are more effective than bans. Warnings hang in there like a nugget of poo on your anus, not leaving for months and months. It's like a constant threat. A ban on the other hand is just a sudden, unpredictable bomb. A warning would control members much better.


Can you back these claims up? 


> The rules are insanely ambiguous.. that's barely a warning. It's just an ambiguous guideline for you to follow.


Dyslexia
Dyslexia is a problem many people have to deal with these days. That's why, *every now and then, when someone posts it may not be in perfect grammar/spelling. It's not appropriate to keep pointing out these little mistakes.*

Where is the ambiguity?


----------



## Seph (Feb 24, 2012)

> That statement is not universal and it is incorrect to say that we are all a bunch of strangers online. People form or place their own identity online and interact with others ie. they know the people on this site.



Real life is much more stressful than online. Are you denying this basic truth?



> Can you back these claims up?



Well, I'm a psychology major, so unless you don't believe me..

I can't find a study right now to back it up. But let's use common sense.

Being very near a ban would keep you under constant pressure to behave.



> Where is the ambiguity?



"Not appropriate?" What is that supposed to mean? And what's the punishment for doing something not appropriate?


----------



## KAKASHI10 (Feb 24, 2012)

I'm posting based on the OP = meaning the first post.
As far as you say, you are not wining about your perm ban, but about the system. 

1- Mods  are not paid, and some times have limited time on the forums.
So they try to be efficient by just eradicating any potential havoc that can come from a thread or post.
2- Now Sadly the mods might have their umbral of eradicating to  low because lets be honest here. KL/telegrams  is a jungle. 
3- Sadly there are people that might literally kill them self with a little insult from someone they dont know. Im serious about this. But it comes with posting in the internet. 
4- The system should have a disciplinary guy among the mods, maybe who has more time to be on the forums that actually has an idea of each member. This mod, should contact some offenders by pm and explain they are posting border line or your getting a warning because of this, next time I delete your thread or just post in the thread itself. 
Now some mods have done it, but my question is IS IT PROTOCOL AND ARE THEY DOING IT CONSTANTLY? I do not know. Who ever check on mods, can make sure they are doing this constantly. 

5- getting perm ban is bad. specially because in one way or another this is a community that we come to share about our common thing been the manga. 

6- Having some wank threads, are part of been in the community. You want to *spress * (how do you spell that?) what you feel about a character. 

7- Debating and having different opinions is nature by itself, and a little argument here and there is suppose to be expected. But on certain level. That before the thread gets close, a mod. can go and say, OK people lets keep this nice if not Im closing this, or even say another insult after my post is getting a 3 days ban. I have seen this before, but not lately. 

8- I would like to pledge on behave of the OP, to have his perm ban remove. The mods and the administrator could come up with something like OK you can make 1 wank thread per day for 3 days a week, anything else and you go back to been perm. 
Or something in those lines. 

I tend to do small posts of 3-4 lines, very rarely something this big. But I think that merits that I talk a little more than usual. 
I joke around and try to be objective based on the information I read. So I might not be a great member but at least have given some options and the plee to take away the perm ban of OP.
KAKASHI10


----------



## Gunners (Feb 24, 2012)

> Real life is much more stressful than online. Are you denying this basic truth?


Immaterial. 


> Well, I'm a psychology major, so unless you don't believe me..
> 
> I can't find a study right now to back it up. But let's use common sense.
> 
> Being very near a ban would keep you under constant pressure to behave.


Let's use common sense again. Experiencing and knowing that you are skating on thin ice would put you under more pressure. Unlike a verbal warning, you know it is something that can happen it also has the knock on effect of sending a message to others. 



> "Not appropriate?" What is that supposed to mean? And what's the punishment for doing something not appropriate?


What do you think appropriate means? Within the rules it is not a _suitable_ response to bring up someone's spelling mistakes. 

A lot of rules, but very simple. All these rules are not here to get in your way, but to make these forums a fun place to hang out for young and old, to foster pleasant discussion about anything and everything (that is in compliance with the rules, heh.) 

Members are responsible for reading rules and relevant stickies pertaining to guidelines. Claiming ignorance does not justify violation of rules. *Rules are subject to the application and interpretation of the moderators and administrators.
*
*Also note that the moderators and administrators hold the right at any time to remove your posts and/or ban your access to the forum. If you have a legitimate complaint as to the nature of your ban, consult the Konoha Court, visible only to staff and banned users.
*
So, with that - welcome to NarutoForums, post away!


----------



## Seph (Feb 24, 2012)

> Immaterial.



Fantastic argument. Really proves your point, doesn't it?

I shouldn't even have to tell you this: please expound on that thought.



> Let's use common sense again. Experiencing and knowing that you are skating on thin ice would put you under more pressure. Unlike a verbal warning, you know it is something that can happen it also has the knock on effect of sending a message to others.



I don't know what the hell you're trying to do.  

You're totally ignoring my argument. Will you please respond to my point?



> What do you think appropriate means? Within the rules it is not a suitable response to bring up someone's spelling mistakes.



You just contradicted yourself. You even bolded the part, thank you so much for that. 

*Rules are subject to the application and interpretation of the moderators and administrators.*

If they're subject to interpretation of people with power over you, then why are they verbal warnings? You can't know for certain what's bad and what isn't, so why don't the mods themselves warn you?

The rules aren't a verbal warning because they're too ambiguous. Having mods tell you is far more effective.


----------



## Mister (Feb 24, 2012)

No offence, but at the moment it seems like this is just dragging. Especially when it doesn't seem like the mods are going to change anything going by the fact they can actually back up why they won't.


----------



## Seph (Feb 24, 2012)

Mister said:


> No offence, but at the moment it seems like this is just dragging. Especially when it doesn't seem like the mods are going to change anything going by the fact they can actually back up why they won't.



I agree with you; but to be honest you were dragging it on the most.

Anyway I gave a suggestion to Taxman:



> Um, I have a really weird suggestion to keep some pressure off the mods and help make the place less strict in the long run.
> 
> Would it be possible to implement a system where members gained 2.5% or so of their total rep at the end every month? Further, would it be possible to give that rep only to members who never received any infractions or bans on that month? It'd be kinda like a bank with interest rates, basically.
> 
> It's been scientifically proven that rewards work better than punishments, and it'd give people an incentive to behave.



Discuss.


----------



## Whimsy (Feb 24, 2012)

Do people really care that much about rep though? Especially people who flame.

I don't see it making anything approaching as big a difference as the threat of bans.


----------



## Seph (Feb 24, 2012)

Whimsy said:


> Do people really care that much about rep though? Especially people who flame.
> 
> I don't see it making as big a difference as bans.



Yeah, all the regulars care a lot.


----------



## Whimsy (Feb 24, 2012)

But do the people who would potentially pose a problem care? The regular run of the mill member does not require policing. The people that do already run the risk of getting negs, which combined with the report function means the members police themselves to an extent. Your suggestion seems unnecessary.


----------



## dream (Feb 24, 2012)

> Would it be possible to implement a system where members gained 2.5% or so of their total rep at the end every month?  Further, would it be possible to give that rep only to members who never received any infractions or bans?



It might be possible to do this but one of the super admins, Mbxx/Tazmo, will have to implement it and those two probably wouldn't care much about such a thing.  Heck, Mbxx still hasn't finished restoring all the FCs that were split up and it's already been close to a year since the FCs were split up.  Those two don't really care much about this place, probably, and only really make sure that this place is running and that the ads are providing revenue.


----------



## Seph (Feb 24, 2012)

Whimsy said:


> But do the people who would potentially pose a problem care? The regular run of the mill member does not require policing.



Oh yes. I assure you that all the regulars who post a lot will care.

Do you have any idea how important rep is on this forum? 

I've heard about mods wanting to do rep cuts to people to scare them into not flaming.


----------



## Gunners (Feb 24, 2012)

> Fantastic argument. Really proves your point, doesn't it?
> 
> I shouldn't even have to tell you this: please expound on that thought.


And I thought I didn't have to explain why what you said was immaterial to the discussion at hand . There are a lot of things wrong with your statement I will start by saying that it presumes that stress is the only thing that can motivate someone in to responding in an abrasive manner, it also fails to take in consideration that different people hold different values as a result what is more stressful is subjective. 

That being said, that isn't why I said your statement was immaterial. It is irrelevant what causes more stress so long as a wrongful act on your part is causing a member 'stress' that interferes with the comfort they enjoy on this site. 



> I don't know what the hell you're trying to do.
> 
> You're totally ignoring my argument. Will you please respond to my point?


If you don't know what I'm trying to do go back and read my post or read what I'm about to say very carefully. You tried arguing that _a warning is more efficient than a ban because the user knows he is very close to a ban_. I'm telling you that that is not the case because a temporary ban accomplishes that (User knowing that he is close to a ban) and more (Others seeing that they will be banned for similar offences). 



> You just contradicted yourself. You even bolded the part, thank you so much for that.
> 
> Rules are subject to the application and interpretation of the moderators and administrators.
> 
> ...


I did not contradict myself. All rules are subject to interpretation when they are applied for the first time, that does not make the rule itself ambiguous. 

Something else has been drawn to my attention and that is the fact that you are laboring under the delusion that the ambiguity in a law is a sufficient justification for a slap on the wrist. This is where ''Ignorance is no excuse'' or in this case ''claiming ignorance does not justify violation of the rules'' comes into play. When a rule is ambiguous it is up to the people in charge of enforcing that rule to make sense of it so that it can be applied. 

They don't have a responsibility to tip people off ahead of time. When people have had uncertainties in law ( forgotten the specific name for it) they take the issue to the courts ahead of time to find out where they legally stand. Applying this to you and the members here, if they are unsure of how a rule will be applied the responsibility is on them to PM a moderator and find out.


----------



## Xerces (Feb 24, 2012)

If a rule is ambiguous, than the 'rule' itself is flawed.


----------



## Seph (Feb 24, 2012)

> And I thought I didn't have to explain why what you said was immaterial to the discussion at hand . There are a lot of things wrong with your statement I will start by saying that it presumes that stress is the only thing that can motivate someone in to responding in an abrasive manner, it also fails to take in consideration that different people hold different values as a result what is more stressful is subjective.
> 
> That being said, that isn't why I said your statement was immaterial. It is irrelevant what causes more stress so long as a wrongful act on your part is causing a member 'stress' that interferes with the comfort they enjoy on this site.



Oh god. This has to be a joke. You're arguing that some people find online more stressful than real life. 



> If you don't know what I'm trying to do go back and read my post or read what I'm about to say very carefully. You tried arguing that a warning is more efficient than a ban because the user knows he is very close to a ban. I'm telling you that that is not the case because a temporary ban accomplishes that (User knowing that he is close to a ban) and more (Others seeing that they will be banned for similar offences).



How does the user know he's close to a ban if he gets a temporary ban? 

Others seeing that they will be banned? How will other members find out how they got banned? That doesn't happen in the vast majority of the cases.



> All rules are subject to interpretation when they are applied for the first time, that does not make the rule itself ambiguous.



The definition of ambiguous is subject to interpretation   

*open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations;*


----------



## Gunners (Feb 24, 2012)

Seph said:


> Oh god. This has to be a joke. You're arguing that some people find online more stressful than real life.


Selective reading at its finest. Yes I am saying that some people find online more stressful than real life but that was not central to that section of my post. 



> How does the user know he's close to a ban if he gets a temporary ban?
> 
> Others seeing that they will be banned? How will other members find out how they got banned? That doesn't happen in the vast majority of the cases.


They know that they are closer to a ban because the duration of the ban increase with repeated offences. How will others find out how they got banned? Threads like this of course. I now know that calling someone a 'nitwit' in KL will get me banned . 


> The definition of ambiguous is subject to interpretation
> 
> open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations;


And sometimes there is only one interpretation, never the less.......................

The later part of my last post. 

Something else has been drawn to my attention and that is the fact that you are laboring under the delusion that the ambiguity in a law is a sufficient justification for a slap on the wrist. This is where ''Ignorance is no excuse'' or in this case ''claiming ignorance does not justify violation of the rules'' comes into play. When a rule is ambiguous it is up to the people in charge of enforcing that rule to make sense of it so that it can be applied. 

They don't have a responsibility to tip people off ahead of time. When people have had uncertainties in law ( forgotten the specific name for it) they take the issue to the courts ahead of time to find out where they legally stand. Applying this to you and the members here, if they are unsure of how a rule will be applied the responsibility is on them to PM a moderator and find out.


----------



## Drums (Feb 24, 2012)

Lol, I like how Seph negged me for my post in here. Really? And then you think you're entitled to complain about intolerance? You go around bashing and negging people who don't agree with you and then you cry when you face the consequenses of that. Seems like the mods know what they are doing. Hypocrite.

To answer your neg, it aint emotional polemics and it aint vacuous. It's simply the truth. Instead of getting butthurt when people tell you of it or when the mods ban you, perhaps you should start considering where _you_'ve gone wrong.


----------



## dream (Feb 24, 2012)

Seph said:


> I'm sorry, but this is just ridiculous.
> 
> Let's have a hypothetical dead-serious, non-troll essay thread that is widely recognized to be one of the best current threads in the KL. Then some idiot comes in and starts to randomly insult people. Should we allow this idiot to ruin the entire thread? No, we shouldn't; we should give this idiot a warning and/or ban him to make him stop.
> 
> ...



Sorry for not being clear enough, by such threads I meant the kinds of threads that you linked us to especially the first two threads in the case of what you were quoting when replying to that.    

Your Greatest Human Being in Naruto thread was a volatile thread that brought together several fandoms and asked them to discuss which character was the greatest human.  That's a powder keg begging to be lit and eventually it was lit.  It's a good thing that it was closed before others started to flame.  

A non-troll essay thread that's one of the better threads in KL is an entirely different bread of thread.  Such threads, like Pika's , require people to go out of their way to flame/bait/troll.  These threads shouldn't have to suffer because of such people.  I do agree with you on that and I believe that the KL mods understand that and as a result Pika's thread wasn't closed despite people flaming(?) and trolling(?).  Or at least I hope they do. 

You say that threads should only be closed after multiple people are flaming in it but in many cases that isn't exactly a good thing for the overall community.  There are discussions that have been done before many times that are highly controversial and are guaranteed to end up with banned members.  Now suppose that such a topic is brought up again and at some point signs start indicating that flaming, baiting, and trolling are coming up.  The staff has the ability to stop it at a point where things haven't yet reached the point of no return or perhaps when only one person is flaming/baiting/trolling, they know that it is almost guaranteed that more people will break the rules because of frustration, a desire to troll, or any other reason they might have.  They can do as you say and let others flame and then take action whether it be mass banning or whatever action they see fit to take depending on the individual or the staff can close that thread before other members break the rules and thus prevent the possible bannings of those members.

It's here that you have to decide whether a futile discussion, and it is indeed a futile discussion when it has been debated before with no side budging an inch and no new canon information has been made available, or members are more important to the community.  If the thread is closed after multiple members break the rules then the punishments those members, that broke the rules, will receive can be rather severe depending on their history.  These punishments will only really, in all likelihood, serve to anger/frustrate them and when combined with whatever frustration they might have gained debating in that thread and you have one really annoyed member.  Heck, that member might even stop coming on NF or become less active.  In my eyes that isn't a good thing.  And even if they don't stop coming on NF that will be one month where they won't be contributing anything, less activity no matter how less it may be is something that should be avoided if possible.  Add that loss in activity with any of the other members that might have been banned and it's a pretty big trade-off for letting that thread continue until more people started flaming.  Now, if that thread was closed before things became too bad then at worst we might have only one banned member, if the flaming/baiting/trolling was caught in time, along with some frustrated members.  That's better than multiple members being banned.



> Not an argument. Should we not give newer members the chance to discuss the same topics? Also, some members may have not had the chance to discuss that specific topic before either. Why shouldn't we bring back topics that were already discussed from the dead?



I don't believe that I said that newer members shouldn't be allowed to discuss the topic, I was just stating that the topic of your thread had been discussed before and so when the other thread discussing the same thing was closed, I'm assuming it was because of baiting, your thread was closed as well since both threads were about the same thing.  It was likely that the baiting would have moved into your thread as well.



> Look, anyone rational would've waited for more than 3 goddamn posts.



Why would someone need to wait more than three posts to see if that thread would get back on topic?  Everyone should get back on topic right after a mod tells them to get back on topic, they shouldn't wait an x amount of posts after that warning to get back on topic.



> Not an argument. Should we not give newer members the chance to discuss the same topics? Also, some members may have not had the chance to discuss that specific topic before either. Why shouldn't we bring back topics that were already discussed from the dead?
> 
> If we lock topics like these, then what's the point of having a forum with new members?



There are some topics that shouldn't be brought up again because they only end up badly for everyone involved.  There's a reason why Religious and Goku vs Superman debates are banned in the OBD, they frankly were more trouble than they were worth.  Also, it isn't as if we are depriving new members of topics to discuss.  They have plenty of other topics to discuss.  

In any case my statement wasn't really aimed at the topic that you linked.  Your topic, in the eyes of the mod that closed it and my eyes, was based on a flawed interpretation.  The mod corrected you on it and closed that thread.  Now, if you believe that your interpretation of Yamato's statement is correct then you would probably be allowed to debate it in a thread specifically created to debate it.  Or perhaps it wouldn't be allowed if the acceptable consensus was that the view that DN and I have on that panel is correct and it seemed like you were bringing that topic back up to troll/bait.

I've probably derped quite a bit with this post in some areas, most likely in the last part but I can't be bothered to read it over and fix anything since it's time to play Counter-Strike: Source.


----------



## Mintaka (Feb 24, 2012)

Eternal Goob said:


> It might be possible to do this but one of the super admins, Mbxx/Tazmo, will have to implement it and those two probably wouldn't care much about such a thing.  Heck, Mbxx still hasn't finished restoring all the FCs that were split up and it's already been close to a year since the FCs were split up.  Those two don't really care much about this place, probably, and only really make sure that this place is running and that the ads are providing revenue.


This is a good thing because?

Really we need to do something about tazmo's lax Sadmin policies.


----------



## Spy_Smasher (Feb 24, 2012)

Gunners said:


> Applying this to you and the members here, if they are unsure of how a rule will be applied the responsibility is on them to PM a moderator and find out.


Occasionally people do that and when they do, boy do I appreciate it.


----------



## Distracted (Feb 25, 2012)

I've actually had people PM me from time to time asking about a rule or where to do something.  I've made sure to go out of my way to help them get the answers they need in those situations.

Rarely do mods need to discuss it as we tend to have at least a working knowledge of the majority of sections on the forum.  However, there have been times when I or others have directed the user to a mod who would know more about the specific question they asked (i.e. They wanted to know about where and how to post artwork, I would forward the PM and direct them to Juli or TekJounin with a blurb about the sections.)

There has also been situations where a user has had a history of posting signatures that either cross the line or are really toeing the line of 'decency' as we have defined it on the forum.  Several of them have made Staff Conference Room threads or PMed mods asking about the signature and whether it's fair or foul before they use it.  I've seen many mods go out of their way to help them out in those situations.

They get to keep their signatures the way they like them and not get banned in those situations.  Also, if they ask a mod and the mod gives them approval, but it later comes out that the staff is against the signature then you will not find that user getting punished for it as they were acting on good faith.

I'm not saying you should have to ask a mod for every questionable situation.  Just letting more people know about what we do on any given day.


----------



## Mister (Feb 25, 2012)

Seph said:


> I agree with you; but to be honest you were dragging it on the most.



Being honest: I wasn't. I should've been clearer, it seems like you're not actually considering what any of the mods who've told you things (Naruto, Chainer, Distracted). Rather you dismiss them and carry on- debates like this occur.
Before you know it: its dragged.

To be very honest, the mods on this forum aren't too bad with the way flamebait/flaming is handled. The examples you gave were posters going out of line, even trying to water down their 'shots'; the rules also stipulate that users shouldn't try to create a hostile environment. 
I'm sure in life, or other forums, you might be free to do so- but defo not on NF as per se the rules.

The only minor issue with the mods seems timing, but then again no-one expects voluntary mods to be online 24/7.


Mind you I'm speaking about the sections I frequent {NBD and Konoha Library}, but then again so are you.

And about your suggestion, it probably won't change anything. The sections in question would still probably turn into the cesspool it occasionally can become. 
If it ain't broke; don't fix it.



StrawHeart said:


> Lol, I like how Seph negged me for my post in here. Really? And then you think you're entitled to complain about intolerance? You go around bashing and negging people who don't agree with you and then you cry when you face the consequenses of that. Seems like the mods know what they are doing. Hypocrite.



Negging others out of intolerance and then complaining about intolerance would be quite odd. Especially if the latter is making suggestions what improvements the mods should make.

Though it would be a little unfair to dismiss Seph due to a neg, though *assuming* he has a history of intolerance then it very likely is something worth considering. 

However, this is an illustration for why your rep suggestion won't work, Seph. 
There will always be trolls who can get by 'the system' and with your suggestion they can get more rep power which probably has negative implications if a rewarded user is quite dogmatic in that they'll not tolerate any opposing viewpoint. 

It seems good now, you get rewarded/penalized depending on individual users' preferences.


----------



## Talis (Feb 25, 2012)

Mist Puppet said:


> Depends on the topic really.
> 
> The fiftieth "Itachi is stronger than Jiraiya" or "Tobi's identity is Obito!" threads get annoying, and the posts in them regurgitate the same talking points in every other thread made before it.
> 
> If you have a new, fresh perspective on the topic, I don't think it'll be deleted.



Exactly this, there are even tons of other threads which i never saw before and yet they keep getting deleted.


----------



## SaiST (Feb 25, 2012)

Threads aren't deleted due to redundancy. They are closed, or moved to Sanitation. When they are, the least that will be done by the mod is stating why. The most would be to provide links to the most recent, or notable past discussions of similar topic(s).


*Spoiler*: _Concerning leniency on flaming_ 



Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile.


----------



## EJ (Feb 25, 2012)

Hey, the OP in this thread is threatening to post my pictures on this forum, in order to promote flame baiting. This thread wins.

Nice going op. Way to improve the forum.


----------



## Seph (Feb 25, 2012)

Flow said:


> Hey, the OP in this thread is threatening to post my pictures on this forum, in order to promote flame baiting. This thread wins.
> 
> Nice going op. Way to improve the forum.



I was asking if it was against the rules. 

Keep lying.


----------



## EJ (Feb 25, 2012)

They can check private messaging regarding situations like this. It's pretty damn serious....seeing as how you have personal information about someone.


----------



## Seph (Feb 25, 2012)

Flow said:


> They can check private messaging regarding situations like this. It's pretty damn serious....seeing as how you have personal information about someone.



I sent you a love letter? What does that have to do with anything?


----------



## EJ (Feb 25, 2012)

I'm not talking about that. In fact, they are going to want to know how you got that information in order for me to delete it or something. 

If you wanted to have fun with it more, you should of stayed quiet about it. But now you just royally fucked yourself lol.

You don't go on a forum ESPECIALLY something like this where you have older members engaging on younger members, and the police have been involved and then FLAUNT the fact you have their personal information.

Smart move. Way to "improve the forum".


----------



## Seph (Feb 25, 2012)

Flow said:


> I'm not talking about that. In fact, they are going to want to know how you got that information in order for me to delete it or something.
> 
> If you wanted to have fun with it more, you should of stayed quiet about it. But now you just royally fucked yourself lol.



I was asking if it was against the rules. That's not threatening now, is it?

If asking something is against the rules will get me banned, then it proves that this forum is just beyond ridiculous and I'll gladly get permed if that's the case.


----------



## EJ (Feb 25, 2012)

"I'm tempted to post a picture of Flow"

"Nice military outfit"

"you didn't post this on the forum, I found it lol"

it sounds like this sequence of post was to try and mess with me or something. Doesn't sound like you were trying to find out if you can get banned. Who are you trying to fool?

you got your hand stuck in the cookie jar. except you weren't even trying to be secretive about it.


----------



## Seph (Feb 25, 2012)

> Doesn't sound like you were trying to find out if you can get banned.



I was tempted, which is why I asked if it was against the rules.

And they said it was.

So I didn't post the pictures. =_=


----------



## EJ (Feb 25, 2012)

No, you wouldn't make "Nice military outfit" in order to try and find that type of stuff out. Don't worry, they'll check the recent PM you just sent out.


----------



## Chainer (Feb 26, 2012)

Flow said:


> They can check private messaging regarding situations like this. It's pretty damn serious....seeing as how you have personal information about someone.



No we can't. Don't know where you heard otherwise.


----------



## EJ (Feb 26, 2012)

Oh, well....

Don't do it. It's bad.


----------



## Seph (Feb 26, 2012)

Flow said:


> Oh, well....
> 
> Don't do it. It's bad.



I found out it's against the rules, so I won't.

Happy?


----------



## EJ (Feb 26, 2012)

Yeah, but the same guy who tries to improve the forum talks about people who are into loli, gossips about them, etc.

I just find this thread weird coming from the op.


----------



## Sasuke Uchiha (Feb 26, 2012)

Where can I find the bathhouse section? I can't find it anywhere.


----------



## Basilikos (Feb 26, 2012)

^Why would you want to? The overwhelming majority of threads in there are awful.


----------



## Atlantic Storm (Feb 27, 2012)

Sasuke Uchiha said:


> Where can I find the bathhouse section? I can't find it anywhere.



You need to be in the 18+ Members user group to be able to view it.


----------



## Charlotte D. Kurisu (Feb 27, 2012)

i am more worried about how edit/joke thread are taken seriously.. i mean how many times has these resulted in serious discussions and flaming.. people like joke threads.. if joke threads can't be moded in the Library it should get its own section like it did 4 years ago..


----------



## Sygurgh (Feb 27, 2012)

Seph said:


> I was tempted, which is why I asked if it was against the rules.
> 
> And they said it was.
> 
> So I didn't post the pictures. =_=



God, this post is so wrong.

So if the mods had theoretically accepted that you post the pictures, you would have been tempted to post Flow’s personal information against his wishes. Do you even know how much of an assh*le you sound like?

This is beyond flame baiting and borderline criminal.


----------



## EJ (Feb 27, 2012)

Yeah, I know right? I didn't even tell anyone about the information he sent me in my pms publicly.

EDIT:

I just wanted to post this in the thread because I found it odd that someone who wants to "Help the forum out" is doing stuff like this.


----------



## ashher (Feb 28, 2012)

I dunno exactly for what Seph got banned....but about the examples mentioned in OP, i think the steps taken were pretty much just. even in the OP, after the examples, Seph follows it up with the rational that ppl will have to face such 'hostile' environment in real life...meaning that even he is aware of the fact that those comments were creating 'hostility',which means that the mods were perfectly within their rights to take step. About them being moral police and kindergarten teachers, its a clear ad hominem to cover up one single fact that there did happen something that can be considered as breach of moral.

My point is someone will have to decide how strict or otherwise to be. As far as they are equal in their treatment to everyone, there is little to complain about. Calling someone is 'not the sharpest pencil in drawer' is hardly necessary to make/argue any point...so stopping everyone from saying that is not a problem. Problem would be if some particular persons are stopped and some are not.


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Feb 28, 2012)

I've read into this thread and I must point out a personal experience I've had with you and pointing out errors. 

Seph, a while back I remember posting in threads and you would continuously quote my post to correct my grammar. You wouldn't just point out an error; you would obnoxiously quote my posts, correct them, and then proceed to bold the errors. Not only was this very annoying, but it seemed obvious that you were trying to get a response out of me.


----------



## EJ (Feb 28, 2012)

He also left me a vm stating "Nice military outfit"

But says he wasn't trying to get a response out of me.


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Feb 28, 2012)

I promise I am not trolling, flaming or baiting. But recently you and Xerces posted in my thread insulting me for my interest. Or so you thought. And saying how what I like disgust you.

I've read some of your posts in the Naruto sections of the forums which were clearly made to get a reaction out of a characters fanbase. I'm not saying I'm innocent and never do anything. But you are definitely not innocent.


----------



## mali (Feb 28, 2012)

Lol backfire


----------



## EJ (Feb 28, 2012)

Erio, I don't even know what he was trying to accomplish with this thread....


I think he's avoiding it now. lol


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Feb 28, 2012)

Just as well I guess. Anyway I think I am needed elsewhere.


----------



## Seph (Feb 28, 2012)

Erio Touwa said:


> I promise I am not trolling, flaming or baiting. But recently you and Xerces posted in my thread insulting me for my interest. Or so you thought. And saying how what I like disgust you.
> 
> I've read some of your posts in the Naruto sections of the forums which were clearly made to get a reaction out of a characters fanbase. I'm not saying I'm innocent and never do anything. But you are definitely not innocent.



You call that insulting?

I'm standing up for what I believe is wrong. I believe pedophilia is wrong.

I didn't flame you ONCE. Saying that your actions disgusted me does not mean I'm flaming you.

You decided to take them personally when I was trying to help you.


----------



## mali (Feb 28, 2012)

Having cartoon gifs of childlike characters on some internet forum does not make you a pedophil.


----------



## EJ (Feb 28, 2012)

I like how you ignore everything else that I've said in this thread as go for an easy target.


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Feb 28, 2012)

Seph said:


> You call that insulting?
> 
> I'm standing up for what I believe is wrong. I believe *pedophilia* is wrong.
> 
> ...



First of all referring to me a a p*d*p****.


----------



## Seph (Feb 28, 2012)

Mali said:


> Having cartoon gifs of childlike characters on some internet forum does not make you a pedophil.



It was his talking to underage members here that mostly disturbed me.


----------



## mali (Feb 28, 2012)

For all you know, he could be fucking around. Going by your logic, I'm a rapist seeing as I've threatened some members with forced sex in jest.


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Feb 28, 2012)

I barely talk to anyone on this forum in Vm/Pm

Anyway if you haven't noticed I make jokes towards anyone. In case you missed me talking about Bioness, Synn, and Laix.

I am fucking around but he doesn't seem to understand that.


----------



## EJ (Feb 28, 2012)

Seph, you talk about how you're disgusted towards other members, but why did you continue your sexual advances towards me when I asked you to stop?


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Feb 28, 2012)

Don't forget when you constantly made remarks about my penis. Which I have never talked to you about or shown you. Pictures don't even exist of it, what was your intent then sir?


----------



## Seph (Feb 28, 2012)

Erio Touwa said:


> Don't forget when you constantly made remarks about my penis. Which I have never talked to you about or shown you. Pictures don't even exist of it, what was your intent then sir?



Boohoo, I was teasing about the size of your penis and your grammar mistakes. Cry me a river. BIG FUCKING DEAL.


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Feb 28, 2012)

Seph said:


> Boohoo, I was teasing about the size of your penis and your grammar mistakes. Cry me a river. BIG FUCKING DEAL.



Thank you for proving my point. Frankly you don't deserve warnings, you clearly have an intent to insight conflict upon members.


----------



## Seph (Feb 28, 2012)

Erio Touwa said:


> Thank you for proving my point. Frankly you don't deserve warnings, you clearly have an intent to insight conflict upon members.



I was teasing you as a friend. 

We both know that I'm an asshole. It's just how I show my appreciation.

That comment about Erio being naked under her dress was the last straw for me, though.


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Feb 28, 2012)

I wasn't the one who said that someone else did and I asked you guys.


----------



## mali (Feb 28, 2012)

Bipolar.jpg        .


----------



## Leuconoe (Feb 28, 2012)

Spy_Smasher said:


> Yeah, this thread is not about Seph's ban.
> 
> Obviously, it was presented as evidence so it can be discussed but see if you guys can keep this debate in the realm of policy, rather than one specific incident in isolation.



Just a reminder, guys. It's a thread by Seph, not about your issues with him or his issues with you. Maybe make a PM if you want to address this? Because these replies sound extremely personal. Just don't want this locked/your business all out like this.


----------



## Mister (Feb 28, 2012)

Seph said:


> Boohoo, I was teasing about the size of your penis and your grammar mistakes. Cry me a river. BIG FUCKING DEAL.



There you have it: the user who claims that the mods are too intolerant against flaming.


----------



## EJ (Feb 28, 2012)

No. The thing is seph is trying to troll/fool people ini believing he really wants to make this forum a safe place. Especially when a member has told me he likes to stalk people to figure out personal information about them.


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Feb 28, 2012)

Mister said:


> There you have it: the user who claims that the mods are too intolerant against flaming.



I see what you did there :ho


----------



## Mister (Feb 28, 2012)

Flow said:


> No. The thing is seph is trying to troll/fool people ini believing he really wants to make this forum a safe place.* Especially when a member has told me he likes to stalk people to figure out personal information about them.*



First I read he negs out of intolerance - ironic considering the thread's purpose - not this?! 

I say: Seph's own 'interesting' hobbies and traits probably shouldn't be factored into his idea. Unless he is notorious for it, though. Then it is worth considering.

Though stalking... 



Erio Touwa said:


> I see what you did there :ho


----------



## EJ (Feb 28, 2012)

It IS worth considering. This guy says he wants to make the forum a better place and creates this thread then we should bring up his past behavior. 

Seph, do you want me to post the PM that you sent me? You know, I want YOUR permission. Not the mods (even though other members have done this before and gotten away with it)


----------



## Xerces (Feb 28, 2012)

Erio Touwa said:


> Don't forget when you constantly made remarks about my penis. Which I have never talked to you about or shown you. Pictures don't even exist of it, what was your intent then sir?



I would have thought you would be more liberal with this sort of subject matter, considering your own _'hobbies'_


----------



## Gunners (Feb 28, 2012)

@ the direction this thread is heading in.


----------



## Chainer (Feb 28, 2012)

Back on topic, please.


----------



## Spy_Smasher (Feb 29, 2012)

Closing by request.


----------

