Go Back   Muse Messageboard > Muse Site > Muse.mu Support

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 5 votes, 5.00 average.
Old 18-04-2013, 04:51 AM   #841
Frakkles
Biggest Beef Stirrer 2010, 2012, 2013
 
Frakkles's Avatar
 
Join Date: 21 November 2009
Location: Throwing You On The Ground
Age: 26
Send a message via Skype™ to Frakkles
Facebook icon Last.fm icon Twitter icon
Also, how do you know Carrie's post "wasn't meant in that manner"? Because she told you so.

It's the same concept as saying something offensive as a joke but, because we're "troublemakers", there's no question asked and we're just infracted immediately?

Not only that, you immediately jump to conclusions in both cases. You assume that she was misinterpreted, regardless of what she claims, and you assume that we're being malicious.

It's a double standard and, quite frankly, it's bullshit.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sippe View Post
lol mods are cunts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tjet View Post
I was obviously wrong
Frakkles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 06:56 AM   #842
Niall
☼☁☂❄
 
Niall's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09 April 2006
Location: Herts, UK
Age: 30
Facebook icon Last.fm icon Twitter icon Google Plus icon
Being iterative is not an excuse, it's a method to ensure we give users an opportunity to get with the rules before we start handing out points that can culminate in a ban. If LiT does anything again it will be an infraction. They haven't gotten an infraction before (apart from one warning 4 years ago) so it would heavy handed to give one out right off the bat.

You have infraction records and quite frankly we've stopped giving you the benefit of the doubt. Most of the users on the board don't have a single infraction to their name after all, yet some of you have racked up pages of the things and not erroneously so.

Carrie is well known for her passion for Muse so it was quite obvious that there was no ill intent behind her post without having to ask.
Niall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 07:50 AM   #843
Frakkles
Biggest Beef Stirrer 2010, 2012, 2013
 
Frakkles's Avatar
 
Join Date: 21 November 2009
Location: Throwing You On The Ground
Age: 26
Send a message via Skype™ to Frakkles
Facebook icon Last.fm icon Twitter icon
You never gave me the benefit of the doubt. Most of my early infractions came from completely ridiculous things like "Unpleasent (lolkevspelling) conduct in chat" an a profile infraction for "trolling" (which is ironic since I wasn't actually a part of that discussion until the end yet still received a lesser punishment than the two people who spent 12 pages arguing about stupid and pointless things).

Both of those occurred without prior warnings so the warning defence is a load of bullshit to cover yourselves.

I was infracted for this: http://board.muse.mu/showthread.php?...91#post9172891

Not only was it a joke, it was a clear reference to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XtvhKLuSKs (so it's not there wasn't clear deniability about that one).

I was then infracted for using a second account while banned and this: http://board.muse.mu/showthread.php?...72#post9394672 (both fair enough).

Then this: http://board.muse.mu/showthread.php?...46#post9663446

Again, assuming that I was either going to hire someone to go around with a gun and shoot everyone? Or that I was actually going to do so myself? I seriously believe that mass murder needs to occur because people don't like a song. That's pure genius logic.

This: http://board.muse.mu/showthread.php?...70#post9778170

In which situation, I was provoked and came back with a far less offensive response than the comment he had made.

This: http://board.muse.mu/showthread.php?...90#post9778190

Which I still feel is true.

This: http://board.muse.mu/showthread.php?...32#post9798532 (Off-Topic Posting)

Which is ridiculous. Infracting anyone for posting something that is off-topic is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. People aren't allowed to talk about things without being told off? Sounds a bit like a dictatorship to me.

Where is "the benefit of the doubt" on ANY of these occasions?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sippe View Post
lol mods are cunts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tjet View Post
I was obviously wrong
Frakkles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 07:51 AM   #844
Dee3Dee
Swedish scum
Most Devoted Fan 2012
 
Join Date: 25 September 2009
Age: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Niall View Post
Being iterative is not an excuse, it's a method to ensure we give users an opportunity to get with the rules before we start handing out points that can culminate in a ban. If LiT does anything again it will be an infraction. They haven't gotten an infraction before (apart from one warning 4 years ago) so it would heavy handed to give one out right off the bat.

You have infraction records and quite frankly we've stopped giving you the benefit of the doubt. Most of the users on the board don't have a single infraction to their name after all, yet some of you have racked up pages of the things and not erroneously so.

Carrie is well known for her passion for Muse so it was quite obvious that there was no ill intent behind her post without having to ask.
No, it seems like an excuse to me. While it took you guys a good while to sort out the CarrieB situation (which was a simple case of deleting posts for a start) and then having to "discuss" it, you were quick to bring the ban hammer on Simon for saying "seeding is for fags". Which, for people who know him and don't make assumptions about him, was very clearly tongue-in-cheek. I can't help but wonder if this was part of a personal vendetta against that particular word, or if it had only been given a warning if LiT had called me a "fag" rather than a "retard"? I think we both know the answer. And I'm genuinely not saying this to be offensive, it is something that has been observed and pointed out before, just not by me.

Your condescending replies aside, it's nice to know that the mods have already decided who is genuinely being malicious and who isn't, as if there's a 100% chance that everything we say is intended to be malicious towards everyone ever.
__________________

Last edited by Dee3Dee; 18-04-2013 at 07:55 AM.
Dee3Dee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 07:57 AM   #845
Dee3Dee
Swedish scum
Most Devoted Fan 2012
 
Join Date: 25 September 2009
Age: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frakkles View Post
I was infracted for this: http://board.muse.mu/showthread.php?...91#post9172891

Not only was it a joke, it was a clear reference to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XtvhKLuSKs (so it's not there wasn't clear deniability about that one).

This: http://board.muse.mu/showthread.php?...70#post9778170

In which situation, I was provoked and came back with a far less offensive response than the comment he had made.

This: http://board.muse.mu/showthread.php?...90#post9778190

Which I still feel is true.

This: http://board.muse.mu/showthread.php?...32#post9798532 (Off-Topic Posting)
I didn't even know you got some of these. Those are some of the dumbest infractions I have ever seen. Barely even worth a warning.
__________________
Dee3Dee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 08:59 AM   #846
Niall
☼☁☂❄
 
Niall's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09 April 2006
Location: Herts, UK
Age: 30
Facebook icon Last.fm icon Twitter icon Google Plus icon
I don't have time to go through really old infractions one by one, maybe someone else does, but they should have been dealt with at the time.

It's not an excuse regardless of what it seems like to you. Feel free to come up with weird metrics for how long various decisions should take but they don't mean at thing to me.

If you don't want to get infracted, don't post things you think my get you an infraction. Almost everyone else manages it.
Niall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 09:03 AM   #847
Frakkles
Biggest Beef Stirrer 2010, 2012, 2013
 
Frakkles's Avatar
 
Join Date: 21 November 2009
Location: Throwing You On The Ground
Age: 26
Send a message via Skype™ to Frakkles
Facebook icon Last.fm icon Twitter icon
Don't make claims that are straight up lies then.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sippe View Post
lol mods are cunts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tjet View Post
I was obviously wrong
Frakkles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 09:03 AM   #848
Dee3Dee
Swedish scum
Most Devoted Fan 2012
 
Join Date: 25 September 2009
Age: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Niall View Post
If you don't want to get infracted, don't post things you think my get you an infraction. Almost everyone else manages it.
Or you can not assume that everything we say is intended to offend or provoke. Almost everyone else manages it.
__________________
Dee3Dee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 09:10 AM   #849
Strangeseas
GTA Onizuka
 
Strangeseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: 15 August 2012
Location: Berlin
Age: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dee3Dee View Post
Or you can not assume that everything we say is intended to offend or provoke. Almost everyone else manages it.
People who know you will manage it. It's a huge difference, whether you're posting in MM or in Banter/Love boat.
__________________
Cats > Triangles

No

Strangeseas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 12:46 PM   #850
Ross
There's No "I" In Team
 
Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07 January 2006
Location: Here in the playground of the fabulous
Age: 27
Send a message via MSN to Ross Send a message via Skype™ to Ross
Facebook icon Last.fm icon Live Journal icon Twitter icon Xbox Live icon
My two cents are as thus. As has been said, warnings are a matter of public record, as are infractions. Not the minutiae of them, but their issuing is. With that in mind, the concept of giving the benefit of the doubt is hazy at best and creating a two tiered system at worst. Carrie's original post, not infraction worthy, but the minute she tells other users to go" stuff themselves" when they pick her up on a frankly idiotic post, while not normally provocative posting, certainly crosses that line when taken in conjunction with the subject which it pertained to and was without question infraction worthy. As Ari and Luke are both saying, there is a clear disparity in treatment of specific users when compared to the rest of the users of the board. If 1 user is being given the benefit of the doubt, all others must be - anything else is a glaring lack of moderational consistency and gives rise to the argument of favouritism, which plagued the old team.

There's ways around it which help with transparency. A couple of other boards I've been on had a policy of having a locked sticky in each subforum dedicated to detailing posts whic had been warned/resulted in bans etc. all it requires is a link to the post, a quote of the problematic material and the action taken. It results in total transparency and, to bring up a cliche, it allows justice both to be done and to be seen to be done. It's a logical step from the skin settings showing where warnings or infractions have been issued and it very neatly solves the issues with people feeling slighted etc



Also, I do agree that there seems to be an "infract on sight" for certain offensive terms where there isn't for others of arguably equal weight. Again, the above suggestion would prove/disprove this as it would become a matter of public record
__________________
It's never only the one thing
Always another waiting in line
It's never only the one thing
Always another creeping behind
Ross is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 01:03 PM   #851
Niall
☼☁☂❄
 
Niall's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09 April 2006
Location: Herts, UK
Age: 30
Facebook icon Last.fm icon Twitter icon Google Plus icon
All users are given the benefit of the doubt until they lose it. It's not favouritism to give the benefit of the doubt to only those that don't have infractions, it's just common sense.

As for transparency, we believe we are transparent enough. Every site has different levels of transparency and we are happy with ours.

Feel free to link us to other sites though, we're always keen to see how other boards do things.
Niall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 01:07 PM   #852
Strangeseas
GTA Onizuka
 
Strangeseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: 15 August 2012
Location: Berlin
Age: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ross View Post
worthy. As Ari and Luke are both saying, there is a clear disparity in treatment of specific users when compared to the rest of the users of the board. If 1 user is being given the benefit of the doubt, all others must be - anything else is a glaring lack of moderational consistency and gives rise to the argument of favoritism which plagued the old team.
People do not necessary get the benefit of doubt, but the benefit of not having an warning/ an infraction yet. CarrieB won't get any "benefits" anymore. She got a warning. The mods will look at her posts more suspicious than they already did.

I don't think there is any favoritism. On the long term people get the exactly same treatment as other people, who do exactly the same. But then again there are hardly comparable situation/posts. You always have to put posts into context. Why did someone post something? General behavior, etc. You can't judge a post without context.

The problem is that this context is debatable. That's why we discuss about it. We interpret differently.
__________________
Cats > Triangles

No

Strangeseas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 01:07 PM   #853
Frakkles
Biggest Beef Stirrer 2010, 2012, 2013
 
Frakkles's Avatar
 
Join Date: 21 November 2009
Location: Throwing You On The Ground
Age: 26
Send a message via Skype™ to Frakkles
Facebook icon Last.fm icon Twitter icon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Definition of Favouritism
The practice of giving special treatment to a person or group
If anyone is given the benefit of the doubt while someone else is not, that is special treatment which, in turn, is favouritism.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sippe View Post
lol mods are cunts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tjet View Post
I was obviously wrong
Frakkles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 01:09 PM   #854
fabripav
Funniest Muser 2012
 
fabripav's Avatar
 
Join Date: 18 October 2010
Age: 26
Last.fm icon Twitter icon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strangeseas View Post
CarrieB won't get any "benefits" anymore. She got a warning. The mods will look at her posts more suspicious than they already did.
I seriously doubt this.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiT View Post
" Did you ever struggle in lessons at school and then feel annoyed at the kid next to you who was absolutely nailing everything?" - I was the one who nailed everything.
fabripav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 01:15 PM   #855
Niall
☼☁☂❄
 
Niall's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09 April 2006
Location: Herts, UK
Age: 30
Facebook icon Last.fm icon Twitter icon Google Plus icon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frakkles View Post
If anyone is given the benefit of the doubt while someone else is not, that is special treatment which, in turn, is favouritism.
No, discrimination between two groups based on how well the abide by a set of rules isn't favouritism. Giving the benefit of the doubt to people who have done nothing wrong in the past isn't special treatment it's just sensible. We don't have favourites. We infract people regardless of how 'favourite' they are and punishments are incremental. First offences warrant warnings unless they are very severe, then they warrant infractions.
Niall is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dear Kev Dramatic Hammer Muse.mu Support 2087 25-09-2012 04:12 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Follow the Muse Messageboard on Twitter!
'Pornogenic' - this refers to pics of Muse (and their crotch regions)