Moderators: Multi Hunters, Cheating/Abuse Team
Skoffin wrote: So um.. er... I'll be honest, I don't know what the f*ck to do from here. Goddamnit chu.
Metsfanmax wrote:Woodruff wrote:Nor does squishyg have anything to do with the moderator abuses, to my knowledge.
Still, she feels as though this is a concerted effort by "the mods" to play favorites among themselves. If you object on principle to something structural in your organization, how can you legitimately still claim to be a member of the organization?
nagerous wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:Woodruff wrote:Nor does squishyg have anything to do with the moderator abuses, to my knowledge.
Still, she feels as though this is a concerted effort by "the mods" to play favorites among themselves. If you object on principle to something structural in your organization, how can you legitimately still claim to be a member of the organization?
We do not have a system of collective responsibility here. Mods have a right to disagree with decisions made by other mods. Your suggestion that squishy should resign because she disagrees with one particular ruling is absurd.
Anyway squishy never expressed that she had a particular disagreement with the ruling, if you read her words carefully she just stated that not necessarily everyone was happy with the ruling that was given.
Metsfanmax wrote:I'm not suggesting that she should resign because she disagrees with one ruling. I'm suggesting that she should resign because she believes that the current system is structured in such a way that mods are treated in a biased manner when it comes to the rules. If she was just saying "I think that this mod was treated in a biased manner in this particular case," then fine - you're right, it's just an isolated incident. But Woodruff specifically alluded to the idea of two separate classes on CC, where the staff members are generally treated differently, and squishy implied that she agreed with that statement. What's absurd is a mod continuing to hold her position, and therefore implicitly defend a system whose structure she openly objects to.
squishyg wrote:speak for yourself, clearly other posters in this thread do agree with Woody.
Metsfanmax wrote:I'm not suggesting that she should resign because she disagrees with one ruling. I'm suggesting that she should resign because she believes that the current system is structured in such a way that mods are treated in a biased manner when it comes to the rules. If she was just saying "I think that this mod was treated in a biased manner in this particular case," then fine - you're right, it's just an isolated incident. But Woodruff specifically alluded to the idea of two separate classes on CC, where the staff members are generally treated differently, and squishy implied that she agreed with that statement. What's absurd is a mod continuing to hold her position, and therefore implicitly defend a system whose structure she openly objects to.
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
jefjef wrote:How did thissquishyg wrote:speak for yourself, clearly other posters in this thread do agree with Woody.
BecomeMetsfanmax wrote:I'm not suggesting that she should resign because she disagrees with one ruling. I'm suggesting that she should resign because she believes that the current system is structured in such a way that mods are treated in a biased manner when it comes to the rules. If she was just saying "I think that this mod was treated in a biased manner in this particular case," then fine - you're right, it's just an isolated incident. But Woodruff specifically alluded to the idea of two separate classes on CC, where the staff members are generally treated differently, and squishy implied that she agreed with that statement. What's absurd is a mod continuing to hold her position, and therefore implicitly defend a system whose structure she openly objects to.
Mets. Stop trolling squishyg.
owenshooter wrote:my point is proven. if f*ck can't be on one avatar, than it shouldn't be allowed on any. mod or not, the rulings need to be fair and even across the board. just because King A finds a giraffe amusing and a picture of a black guy not amusing, shouldn't matter. my point is proven, i was found guilty for being owenshooter, period.-the black jesus
Metsfanmax wrote:Woodruff wrote:Nor does squishyg have anything to do with the moderator abuses, to my knowledge.
Still, she feels as though this is a concerted effort by "the mods" to play favorites among themselves. If you object on principle to something structural in your organization, how can you legitimately still claim to be a member of the organization?
Woodruff wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:Woodruff wrote:Nor does squishyg have anything to do with the moderator abuses, to my knowledge.
Still, she feels as though this is a concerted effort by "the mods" to play favorites among themselves. If you object on principle to something structural in your organization, how can you legitimately still claim to be a member of the organization?
She said no such thing.
Metsfanmax wrote:Woodruff wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:Woodruff wrote:Nor does squishyg have anything to do with the moderator abuses, to my knowledge.
Still, she feels as though this is a concerted effort by "the mods" to play favorites among themselves. If you object on principle to something structural in your organization, how can you legitimately still claim to be a member of the organization?
She said no such thing.
You said that, and she agreed with you. Why are you playing semantics?
Woodruff wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:Woodruff wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:Woodruff wrote:Nor does squishyg have anything to do with the moderator abuses, to my knowledge.
Still, she feels as though this is a concerted effort by "the mods" to play favorites among themselves. If you object on principle to something structural in your organization, how can you legitimately still claim to be a member of the organization?
She said no such thing.
You said that, and she agreed with you. Why are you playing semantics?
I'm not at all playing semantics. She said that I wasn't the only one...which was patently clear to anyone reading the thread. All her statement meant for certain was that she had read the thread.
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
king achilles wrote:Owen, if a moderator was wearing your previous avatar, he would have also been told to remove it. If you were wearing Calidmr's avatar, you would have been left alone.
king achilles wrote:Evil Semp took your report as spurious because you just copied and pasted the wordings from another previous report and then you followed it up with a "I could care less how this is ruled,...".
Next time be more careful of what you say or we could take it another way.
I am re-opening this case. Army of GOD, PM sent. You should know better than to do this.
xxtig12683xx wrote:yea, my fav part was being in the sewer riding a surfboard and wacking these alien creatures.
shit was badass
owenshooter wrote:my point is proven. if f*ck can't be on one avatar, than it shouldn't be allowed on any. mod or not, the rulings need to be fair and even across the board. just because King A finds a giraffe amusing and a picture of a black guy not amusing, shouldn't matter. my point is proven, i was found guilty for being owenshooter, period.-the black jesus
owenshooter wrote:but it isn't jesus or an accepted image of christ by the catholic church. ...-the black jesus
owenshooter wrote:go ahead and report me, you will get nowhere...-0
jbrettlip wrote:a lot of people are named Jesus in hispanic culture. Owen (in real life) is half puerto rican and half black. That is why he is the Black Jesus. Want to guess his middle name?? JESUS.
owenshooter wrote:go ahead and report me, you will get nowhere...-0
Army of GOD wrote:I thought it was Shooter...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users