Hey, just a heads-up: maybe try stripping those smiley faces out of the quote or just write two separate posts. If what you're quoting isn't just a single sentence, I guess it's fine, but if it is, there’s really no need to dump twenty different emoticons into a two-sentence snippet. Plus, when you're quoting someone, you should really just focus on the specific part you're actually replying to, rather than grabbing the whole thing.
Personally, I don't think we need a massive influx of emoticons in every single post. A forum is meant for actual discussion, and while emoticons are great for adding a bit of flavor or showing how you feel, they shouldn't be drowning out the actual words—not in my book, anyway. Honestly, hitting ten emoticons per post is more than enough to get the point across.
Having way too many emojis can put a little extra strain on the servers, sure, but even then it's not a huge deal, and frankly, that’s not even my main reason for pushing back on this.
Austin Harris8 said:Look, as you can see, being on a Partial ban indefinitely only makes sense if the user is just fundamentally a problematic person. In my case? It doesn't make any sense at all, because the root of this whole mess isn't me.
The thing is, a Partial ban is inherently indefinite, and let’s be real—the mods only hand those out when they have a legitimate reason to do so. I saw the Zillow moderators actually debating whether to slap a Partial ban on you before you even had a chance to ask for one. Whether or not they decide to lift it once it's gone is entirely up to them, but for right now, it’s staying put.
Look, rustydrifter10, it’s exactly this kind of rhetoric that gets you flagged for sanctions—not because you’re bringing up some specific program. I already tried to explain where the issue lies, and it's not that I think the moderation is being problematic; it's just that the insults and these constant provocations aren't going to fly here, just like they wouldn't be tolerated over at the Wall Street Journal forums.
Austin Harris8, you actually received a partial ban on Zillow after the rules were clearly laid out.
The only actual rule we need regarding partial bans is explaining how they are issued and how users should conduct themselves while they're in effect. Since a partial ban from the staff is essentially permanent, there's really no point in having a formal rule about its duration—it just wouldn't make sense. That idea that you can request to have a partial ban lifted after six months? That isn't a hard-and-fast rule; it’s more of a guideline. For you, or anyone else dealing with a partial ban, the moderators might decide to review an appeal after two months or even a year. Over time, though, that six-month mark has become the unofficial "sweet spot" for making a request, which is why everyone talks about it so much. But again, it’s not a rule, and we don't need one, because as I've mentioned, a partial ban is meant to be a lasting sanction by its very nature.
Whether or not someone's partial ban gets lifted depends almost entirely on the moderators managing the user's specific file, and it won't be removed unless every single current moderator is in total agreement. There isn't an inherent right to have a partial ban overturned; if it ever does get removed, consider it a privilege, not a right.
The admin was actually the one who gave you partial access to the PŽK back in 2010, so that’s way out of a moderator's hands—it wasn't like a moderator was the one who restricted your PŽK access. I just went ahead and stripped that partial access away myself, so now you can go ahead and file a complaint using your original nickname, but I'm definitely banning this current account.
Terry Johnson3 said:I’d honestly file a formal complaint against this moderator because her bias has been pretty obvious for a while now. She turns a blind eye when users like Eric Chase12—who, by the way, is banned across all our forums—throw insults around, and the most recent example was his comment right here:
This post is getting a warning.
Terry Johnson3 said:When I tried doing that before, I was the one who ended up banned, since apparently, we aren't allowed to complain.
The way this looks is that you got flagged because you voiced a complaint—but that's not it. You got flagged because you broke the rules, just like other users did, including the very person you were complaining about.
Terry Johnson3 said:I really think someone as biased as Lilla P. should be stripped of her moderator privileges for the Accounting Software thread.
That’s just not going to happen. I pop into that thread from time to time, and yeah, I know people get into heated arguments there that occasionally cross the line, but I don't think the moderation is fundamentally broken. Honestly, you tend to go overboard sometimes too; like, remember when you jumped into that discussion where people were talking about a specific software and basically called anyone interested in using it a masochist? You might get away with a single post like that, but if you start using that kind of language repeatedly, it won't be allowed because it ends up insulting and belittling everyone else in the conversation.
We’ve had an absolutely wild and hectic weekend, plus a few crazy days leading up to it. Just wanted to let you know we haven't forgotten about her complaint; we just pushed off getting back to her until we could catch a breather, since we've been completely buried with other projects lately.
Austin Harris8 said:Well... it was just a misunderstanding. 😉 Everything's fine now. There’s really no need for an apology here, because there wasn't any bad intention involved in the first place. An apology only makes sense if someone actually meant to cause trouble, which wasn't the case. 😛
Well, it looks like Tyler Cruz32 and Nicole James have covered all the bases and gotten everything squared away, so I'm going to go ahead and close this thread.
Arthur Flores2 said:I don't get it—what exactly makes that joke off-limits?
Honestly, it’s not even funny, and it barely even touches on atheism; it just feels like you're trying to stir the pot. It seems like that's your whole goal with every single post in this thread. Enough already.
Honestly, if you try to tell that joke to him, he’s definitely not going to want to hang out with you ever again. And look, bringing up the Virgin Mary bitch thing? That has absolutely nothing to do with the jokes themselves, and you really shouldn't have dragged that into the conversation.
I’m asking everyone here to please hold off on jumping into threads unless you actually intend to be helpful, stay on topic, and keep things respectful.
Jeffrey Long said:No, I’m actually talking about the ones in the locked thread. 😉 I'm just wondering if I have the right idea of what "trolling" actually means here.
Honestly, you really have to look at the context here. I don't even know what kind of bet is being discussed or if it even happened, and the way the rest of the thread was moderated isn't something we can just ignore either. At first glance, those initial posts don't look great. To be fair, I don't even know if you work for some municipal office or what, so it's a bit tough for me to judge exactly what those posts are referencing. That third one definitely deserves a ban in my book, and honestly, the fourth one looks pretty bad too.
Hey everyone, just a heads-up that you can actually start suggesting folks from the community to the moderators if you think they'd be a good fit to handle the PDF sections, since the official application process really kicks off with their recommendation.
Jeffrey Long said:Are you actually suggesting that, in this specific instance, we're looking at someone just trolling?
Are you talking about that last post before the mods stepped in? He got hit with a warning for being abusive, which, if you ask me, was totally the right call.
The first four posts are just part of the Archive—they're old entries sitting in a locked PDF that isn't even active anymore, so there's really no point in documenting them. That last post, though? That was written just a few hours ago. I’m pretty sure the moderators will step in once they actually get around to looking at it. 🙂
Schmokljan had his fair share of chances, he just chose not to take them. Honestly, the agreement to keep things civil wasn't exactly asking for much; he could have easily followed the rules if he actually cared about being part of this community. Nobody was trying to force him to conform or turn into someone else—we didn't set any crazy special conditions for him either. We just laid out some simple guidelines, but he seemed hell-bent on breaking them.
That’s really all there is to it. You'll know when we finally join the EU, but let's mark this moment differently.