As it happened here:
http://armorgames.com/community/thread/12479175/locked-moegreche-must-be-tired-of-this-thread/page/1
We learn 1) armorgames allows its moderators to ban users w/o reason 2) armorgames does not allow users to contest bans
3) armorgames does not allow users to present problems with moderators 4) armorgames decide moderation-issues w/o even looking at the case 5) armorgames allows the accused moderators to moderate their own case, what is unaccaptable in any system 6) armorgames flat out lies here: "You chose to start and maintain a discussion with a religious topic that had absolutely nothing to do with the game in question. "
- as the thread was not a game's thread, but a general thread
- it wasn't I who started the thread
7) armorgames flat out lies at this: "All participants in this discussion were warned. All of them."
- as only my posts were removed, and on top of it I was banned, while the other side (Moegreche) suffered no action, this is nothing but flat out injustice.
8) armorgames flat out lies again with this: "One of the images you linked to was me doing just that."
- when the "apology" contains threat of more banning, direct accusation and such, it is not an apology.
This is an example of Ferret's "apologies", and "investigation of cases":
"Moegreche has long been a Mod here at Armor Games, and is most upstanding of character. I'll let him respond to this if he wants to, but as far as I'm concerned the Armor Games admins support his ruling in this matter.
If this thread derails itself into harassing/bashing a Moderator, I will personally obliterate your account. "
So as Moegreche "has been ... most upstanding of character" there is no need to even look at the case rised. Ye, like it works that way. Upstanding President Nixon, eh?
"has long been a Mod here at Armor Games, and is most upstanding of character. I'll let him respond to this if he wants to, but as far as I'm concerned the Armor Games admins support his ruling in this matter.
"If this thread derails itself into harassing/bashing a Moderator, I will personally obliterate your account. " - what else is this other than threatening without even looking at the case? 9) armorgames allows moderators to TROLL USERS.
The thread was renamed to "Moegreche MUST BE TIRED", what is nothing else but trolling&flaming. And you figured out, it was top-moderator Ferret.
I have nothing else to say. The case is obvious. Armorgames has very serious problems with its moderators, moderations, breaking its own terms&conditions, and in general public handling.
Any post in this thread should be giving me contact-adress of Ferret's superiors. Anything else should be considered off-topic, or even more serious.
@Moegreche I second your suggestion. Let's turn this into a positive way for us to learn something and benefit as a Forum Community alltogether. If anything is to be said, please... feel free to.
@daleks Read point 3) of my previous post again...
@pangtongshu That doesn't mean we don't have a record of what went down...
I think that someone, somewhere has made a small error in this case. Either a mod wasn't explicit enough in explaining why the OP was banned, or the OP failed to understand the explanation provided. In future, steps just need to be taken to prevent something like this ever happening again.
Well, daleks' suggestion may clarify many things for users who haven't watched the whole thing. Personally I have no doubt that the game comment chain was totally irrelevant to the game in question, and, given twillight's erratic behavior in some instances, I tend to believe that the ban was totally justified. However, I am curious as to what exactly transpired, as, the discussion was deleted before I could read it.
So, in the end, posting the evidence may help with one thing: helping twillight2 (finally) understand the definition of flaming, and see his mistakes. Before you argue that he doesn't seem to understand, I must say that, posting the evidence would not only satisfy the curiosity and resolve the doubts of any user seeing threads like this pop up constantly, but also, it would be just so you are absolutely clear and 100 and 1% percent right on your reaction in this matter.
As for the feedback for your team as moderators, I really have nothing more to add. I think I have personally told you (or at least, some of you ) many times (so many that I am worried you may think I only lick your boots. Please assure me it is not the case...). I believe you are doing an excellent work (isn't that much of a surprise given that, AG is a popular international site with a large community, yet, only 10 or so moderators).
To sum up, daleks' suggestion may be a pretty good idea, simply to have done everything in your power to resolve the issue.
Wow that OP really has a huge ego.
I was banned twice and even though it made me mad at the time, I didn't go on a rant spree against the World for several days in-a-row.
Just take the punishment and forget about it. It's not that hard.
I don't need to tell you what you did wrong kid, as many people have said what you did to get yourself a ban.
Just some advice on bans though... take them like a man. I was banned for about the same reason you were banned and I understood I was in the wrong. Why isn't that you can't do the same?
How long was your ban anyways? A day? Wow, missed only a single day of AG. Oh, the humanity.
@daleks In that case, they should at least take a screenshot. If it is evidence, it should be recorded and presentable.
We do have screenshots of the comments, but not for evidential reasons. Here's the rub. If we see a user who is behaving in such a way that clearly warrants a ban, we will ban that user. The only reason a screenshot exists (If I remember correctly) is because whoever was involved in the ban wanted a second opinion (or something like that).
Because bans are (a) temporary and (b) at the discretion of the mods/admins, we don't typically keep evidence. This isn't some sort of trial and so isn't the sort of thing that requires hard and fast evidence. So, while a screenshot of the incident does exist, it's not something we share with users.
And I'm pretty sure a thread was involved, if you've been reading the comments here.
There was no thread involved in the banning of this user. The user was warned about his/her behaviour on a WEPR thread, but this had nothing whatsoever to do with the user's ban.
This is also why we have rules in place against complaining about being banned (which, keep in mind, this user has violated three times now). It's really no one's business why a particular user was banned except the moderation team and that user. Sometimes people do silly or inappropriate things and we like to give users a chance to turn things around. By airing their violations in front of the community, it throws a wrench in this process.
Now, this might lead some to think that the mod team is trying to cover things up by not presenting certain evidence. But let me be perfectly clear - the process of banning is a transparent one. But it's only transparent to the parties involved. We're not going to inform the general AG community when or why a user gets banned.
What would worry me is if the AG community started deeply questioning the impartiality of the moderation team based on the accusations of a deeply confused, erratic, and rather unpleasant individual. The mod team has also been very forthcoming and patient in dealing with this situation.
I would also remind everyone of how deeply confused twillight is about what's going on. As stated in the OP and in several other places, he suggests he was banned for activity on a thread. This is false. Not only have several moderators explained this, but other users who saw the game comments in questions have confirmed this.
In short - if the suggestion is that the mod team is somehow covering things up, that's a baseless accusation. If the suggestion is that we should keep evidence to present to the community when banning users - that's just not going to happen. Users are given an explanation when they are banned. And if they have any questions, there are appropriate outlets for that.
Just to confirm the inquiry, yes @09philj, your assumption is correct.
And once more... please read through all the posts before assuming anything @MattEmAngel... in his post above, @Moegreche repeated what was said on several occasions now. A WEPR thread was part of a missunderstanding, but had nothing to do with the ban that was issued. This was solely based upon an off-topic discussion about religion in game comments where the person being banned was flaming, trolling and swearing, ok?
The fact that you keep repeating this wrongful assumption is showing how you are still unsatisfied about a personal ban encounter in the past. This was resolved, please let it go and stop using this particular situation for that. Thanx.
He's banned. Now is a good time to review our terms of service that everybody agreed to when they signed up for an account...
a.) Your use of the Site is subject to all applicable local, state, national laws and regulations and, in some cases, international treaties. You are solely responsible for all activities, acts and omissions that occur in, from, through or under your user name or password. You shall not use, allow, or enable others to use the Site, or knowingly condone use of this Site by others, in any manner that is, attempts to, or is likely to:
- Be libelous, defamatory, indecent, vulgar or obscene, pornographic, sexually explicit or sexually suggestive, racially, culturally, or ethnically offensive, harmful, harassing, intimidating, threatening, hateful, objectionable, discriminatory, or abusive, or which may or may not appear to impersonate anyone else;
- Affect us adversely or reflect negatively on us, the Site, our goodwill, our employees or moderators, our name or reputation, or cause duress, distress or discomfort to us or anyone else, or discourage any person, firm or enterprise from using all or any portion, features or functions of the Site, or from advertising, linking or becoming a supplier to us in connection with the Site;
