View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
LA_Lakers_Rule Franchise Player
Joined: 23 Aug 2004 Posts: 19482 Location: The X-Files
|
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
24 wrote: | LA_Lakers_Rule wrote: | 24 wrote: | Most posters go directly to the lounge, and most of them only read what's on the front page. If we don't exercise a bit of discretion in merging and locking, there wouldn't be much to read... |
Yep, I totally agree, locking to specifically "merge" is one thing and perfectly understandable obviously... What I'm noticing myself is a lot more locking to kill a topic and/or the practice of "vacation" banning than what I recall has occurred in the past.... perhaps it's just me however.... Oh and btw, I'm not in any way saying this involves you 24 specifically but am speaking in more general terms and I would add that I appreciate your candid opinion and approachability.... On the subject of "locking" to "merge", it's a considerate practice to leave the message in the "locked" thread posting where it's been merged to and include the old locked thread link to the new thread as well which I've noticed has been what's been done lately... I for one appreciate that as it makes it much easier to track down.... |
Not sure what you mean by vacation bans, but we have been a bit more public with suspensions, on the theory that if other users see it, you give them a bit of pause. Kill more than one bird with a stone, so to speak. This is a tumultuous year, so there are a lot of trolls, as well as a more agitated group of posters, so we're trying to keep the site as free from crap as we can while not banning everyone willy nilly.
As for lock or merge, that's a judgement call (sometimes it's purely the topic, and sometimes it's a combo of topic and posters involved). I admit sometimes I just lock threads i see going nowhere. Can't speak for the other mods. It just saves more work later. Sometimes we may make a bad or arbitrary decision, but we're just people, and thus fallible. You can always PM me if you feel a thread was unfairly locked. It's easy to re-open if you make a good case. i've already had my mind changed a few times.
It's standard practice with a merge to leave a "shadow" in the original posting location.
Hope this addresses your concerns. |
Thanks 24, perhaps the increased transparency (more "public") regarding TOS banning has led me to the wrong conclusions.... and I would add that I certainly support "transparency" in as much as this does as we all know act as a fundamental form of achieving a level of deterrence in applications such as this after all..... that said, one could argue whether legitimate or not that some of the banning or perhaps I should say more frequent warnings of such actions would appear to have been in general based on broader interpretations of the TOS in recent weeks or months... then again this may be a false perception of mine as a consequence of the greater transparency you speak of... In either case, whether more "transparent" or not, what would appear to be a broader interpretation of the TOS as it relates to a discussion board remains somewhat of a concern of mine personally, regardless of this increased "transparency", such as it is and for what it's worth that is on the basis of the spirit of an "open" forum as a part of the internet that is generally perceived to be a source for relatively "free" and "open" discussion.... I appreciate the opportunity you provide to openly and fairly discuss the issue.... Let me be clear, this is NOT a major issue for me really but is rather something that has crossed my mine of late and as I said before I'm NOT suggesting that your generally a part of this concern I have expressed.... I'm sure I can speak for the vast majority of members of this forum and say that virtually all of us greatly appreciate what all the mods do to keep LG the best Laker discussion board on the internet just that a great Laker board and I would add that discussing an issue of this sort is not to say that we forum members are not aware of and do not understand and appreciate the difficulties involved in doing so and the nature of "fallibility" that this would entail.... _________________ Rule = win titles
Good judgment comes from experience and a lot of that comes from bad judgment. - Will Rogers ... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LarryCoon Site Staff
Joined: 11 Aug 2002 Posts: 11265
|
Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
LA_Lakers_Rule wrote: | that said, one could argue whether legitimate or not that some of the banning or perhaps I should say more frequent warnings of such actions would appear to have been in general based on broader interpretations of the TOS in recent weeks or months... |
As I'm sure you know, no matter how precisely we write the ToS, it's going to be possible to engage in posting behavior which is disruptive and harmful to the site, while avoiding rule violations. "Crank" behavior is one example. As such, the ToS were written (I should know...I wrote them) with both specific and broad interpretations in mind. There are two advantages to adding the broad interpretations. The first is that it lets us do something about postings which are detrimental to the site yet avoid specific violative conduct.
The second is that it gives us more latitude in moderating the site. I've always had the philosophy of "steer, but don't oversteer." It allows us to achieve this by being more judicial in our enforcement of the rules -- to step in at difficult times, but also to back away when we can do so.
For a number of reasons this is one of those times when we need to steer a little more firmly, which means stepping in more with a broader interpretation of the rules. So yes, what you say is correct -- and it's also by design. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
wolfpaclaker Retired Number
Joined: 29 May 2002 Posts: 58335
|
Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh look Mr ESPN still has time for us folk at LG. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rwongega Franchise Player
Joined: 20 Jul 2005 Posts: 20510 Location: UCLA -> NY
|
Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
wolfpaclaker wrote: | Oh look Mr ESPN still has time for us folk at LG. |
I smell a conspiracy cover up.... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LA_Lakers_Rule Franchise Player
Joined: 23 Aug 2004 Posts: 19482 Location: The X-Files
|
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
LarryCoon wrote: | LA_Lakers_Rule wrote: | that said, one could argue whether legitimate or not that some of the banning or perhaps I should say more frequent warnings of such actions would appear to have been in general based on broader interpretations of the TOS in recent weeks or months... |
As I'm sure you know, no matter how precisely we write the ToS, it's going to be possible to engage in posting behavior which is disruptive and harmful to the site, while avoiding rule violations. "Crank" behavior is one example. As such, the ToS were written (I should know...I wrote them) with both specific and broad interpretations in mind. There are two advantages to adding the broad interpretations. The first is that it lets us do something about postings which are detrimental to the site yet avoid specific violative conduct.
The second is that it gives us more latitude in moderating the site. I've always had the philosophy of "steer, but don't oversteer." It allows us to achieve this by being more judicial in our enforcement of the rules -- to step in at difficult times, but also to back away when we can do so.
For a number of reasons this is one of those times when we need to steer a little more firmly, which means stepping in more with a broader interpretation of the rules. So yes, what you say is correct -- and it's also by design. |
Thanks very much Larry for the input.... The work and dedication you and the mods provide to all of us on this great Laker forum site is very commendable and greatly appreciated by all....
So then my impression that a "broader interpretation of the TOS" appeared to be in practice in recent weeks is not a figment of my imagination after all and is actually purposeful but in turn perhaps transient in nature... At least it's nice to know that I have discerned the change accurately based on what you've said.... Of course as a consequence of an ad hoc approach by applying at times a more "broad interpretation" (implicit) of the TOS and as such at other times necessarily a more "narrow" (explicit) interpretation would inherently leave contributors in any forum in a relative state of flux to some extent simply because mods can and will equivocate regarding TOS rule interpretations "by design" in the event of "more difficult times" as you put it as contrasted to presumably less difficult times apparently....
.... Clearly it is extremely difficult to provide a concrete TOS that would be applicable under EVERY situation but then this is the ongoing issue with any method used to deter undesirable behavior that involve a system of rules to follow. I guess it's a matter of what one's preferences are within the spectrum of a more "explicit" versus more "implicit" approach to a set of rules that have both strengths and weakness in each approach.... It comes down to a spectrum of on the one extreme whether one favors either the inherent weaknesses of a concrete unyielding "explicit" approach to a predefined set of rules that may at times fail to "target" specific undesirable behavior but be definition "fairness" will have been "defined" and as such to a large extent will not be a factor versus on the other end of the spectrum the inherent weaknesses of using a more general "implicit" approach of rule interpretation that encompasses degrees of equivocation based on "subjective" interpretation that by its very nature can at times be perceived by some to be "unfair" by some. So we would have on the one hand using the first approach some areas of deterrence may potentially "fall through the cracks" but at the same time there is no threat of misinterpretation or abuse as opposed to on the other hand the second approach of applying more latitude may be perceived to act in a way to provide greater or more efficient deterrence of undesirable behavior but at the same time misinterpretation and even abuse can potentially be present as well.... Neither approach is "perfect" of course and it all comes down to personal preferences that one might hold to either approach....
What we basically have is that one could posit that on the one hand with the more "explicit" approach those who partake in a forum will at least know how the TOS will be applied based on a set of "specific" rules that may not cover all contingencies regarding proper decorum but "fairness" will be a product of the very rules themselves as accepted on the basis of becoming a member of the forum in the first place whereas on the other hand using a more "implicit" approach then improved decorum is perhaps achieved but because of the more ambiguous method used to apply a given set of rules this possible greater level of deterrence can potentially have its drawbacks as well on a personal level regarding the specific forum members subject to these very rules. Clearly it's not an easy balancing act and each of the positions at either end of the spectrum have their pluses and minuses on both sides.... Again personal preference to either approach can be supported either way....
.....In conclusion: As I see it, based on what you've said (in bold above) then more or less by "design" I suppose one can expect that in the event of "more difficult times" the more "implicit" approach will be in practice in contrast to when in "less" difficult times we can perhaps expect the more "explicit" approach to be applied... so in the end then it would come down to determining what is defined as and perceived to be "difficult times" at any given time by the mods in regards to what to expect as far as the way the TOS will be applied.... It would seem the approach is arguably a bit nebulous in nature but if the desired goal of applying the rules in the most "judicial" manner possible is ultimately attained then all is well and the difficult work done is decidedly worthwhile..... _________________ Rule = win titles
Good judgment comes from experience and a lot of that comes from bad judgment. - Will Rogers ... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
55 Franchise Player
Joined: 04 Jan 2008 Posts: 12092
|
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
LA_Lakers_Rule wrote: | LarryCoon wrote: | LA_Lakers_Rule wrote: | that said, one could argue whether legitimate or not that some of the banning or perhaps I should say more frequent warnings of such actions would appear to have been in general based on broader interpretations of the TOS in recent weeks or months... |
As I'm sure you know, no matter how precisely we write the ToS, it's going to be possible to engage in posting behavior which is disruptive and harmful to the site, while avoiding rule violations. "Crank" behavior is one example. As such, the ToS were written (I should know...I wrote them) with both specific and broad interpretations in mind. There are two advantages to adding the broad interpretations. The first is that it lets us do something about postings which are detrimental to the site yet avoid specific violative conduct.
The second is that it gives us more latitude in moderating the site. I've always had the philosophy of "steer, but don't oversteer." It allows us to achieve this by being more judicial in our enforcement of the rules -- to step in at difficult times, but also to back away when we can do so.
For a number of reasons this is one of those times when we need to steer a little more firmly, which means stepping in more with a broader interpretation of the rules. So yes, what you say is correct -- and it's also by design. |
Thanks very much Larry for the input.... The work and dedication you and the mods provide to all of us on this great Laker forum site is very commendable and greatly appreciated by all....
So then my impression that a "broader interpretation of the TOS" appeared to be in practice in recent weeks is not a figment of my imagination after all and is actually purposeful but in turn perhaps transient in nature... At least it's nice to know that I have discerned the change accurately based on what you've said.... Of course as a consequence of an ad hoc approach by applying at times a more "broad interpretation" (implicit) of the TOS and as such at other times necessarily a more "narrow" (explicit) interpretation would inherently leave contributors in any forum in a relative state of flux to some extent simply because mods can and will equivocate regarding TOS rule interpretations "by design" in the event of "more difficult times" as you put it as contrasted to presumably less difficult times apparently....
.... Clearly it is extremely difficult to provide a concrete TOS that would be applicable under EVERY situation but then this is the ongoing issue with any method used to deter undesirable behavior that involve a system of rules to follow. I guess it's a matter of what one's preferences are within the spectrum of a more "explicit" versus more "implicit" approach to a set of rules that have both strengths and weakness in each approach.... It comes down to a spectrum of on the one extreme whether one favors either the inherent weaknesses of a concrete unyielding "explicit" approach to a predefined set of rules that may at times fail to "target" specific undesirable behavior but be definition "fairness" will have been "defined" and as such to a large extent will not be a factor versus on the other end of the spectrum the inherent weaknesses of using a more general "implicit" approach of rule interpretation that encompasses degrees of equivocation based on "subjective" interpretation that by its very nature can at times be perceived by some to be "unfair" by some. So we would have on the one hand using the first approach some areas of deterrence may potentially "fall through the cracks" but at the same time there is no threat of misinterpretation or abuse as opposed to on the other hand the second approach of applying more latitude may be perceived to act in a way to provide greater or more efficient deterrence of undesirable behavior but at the same time misinterpretation and even abuse can potentially be present as well.... Neither approach is "perfect" of course and it all comes down to personal preferences that one might hold to either approach....
What we basically have is that one could posit that on the one hand with the more "explicit" approach those who partake in a forum will at least know how the TOS will be applied based on a set of "specific" rules that may not cover all contingencies regarding proper decorum but "fairness" will be a product of the very rules themselves as accepted on the basis of becoming a member of the forum in the first place whereas on the other hand using a more "implicit" approach then improved decorum is perhaps achieved but because of the more ambiguous method used to apply a given set of rules this possible greater level of deterrence can potentially have its drawbacks as well on a personal level regarding the specific forum members subject to these very rules. Clearly it's not an easy balancing act and each of the positions at either end of the spectrum have their pluses and minuses on both sides.... Again personal preference to either approach can be supported either way....
.....In conclusion: As I see it, based on what you've said (in bold above) then more or less by "design" I suppose one can expect that in the event of "more difficult times" the more "implicit" approach will be in practice in contrast to when in "less" difficult times we can perhaps expect the more "explicit" approach to be applied... so in the end then it would come down to determining what is defined as and perceived to be "difficult times" at any given time by the mods in regards to what to expect as far as the way the TOS will be applied.... It would seem the approach is arguably a bit nebulous in nature but if the desired goal of applying the rules in the most "judicial" manner possible is ultimately attained then all is well and the difficult work done is decidedly worthwhile..... |
I'd ban you just for making me read this long post when you could've just wrote "sometimes mods have to use their best judgment".
Wouldn't you agree? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LA_Lakers_Rule Franchise Player
Joined: 23 Aug 2004 Posts: 19482 Location: The X-Files
|
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^ Uh.... You don't expect me to agree with that, RIGHT? .... But then I'll admit you've got a point... .... I have to say I'm a bit surprised you actually read all of that dribble... but I'm flattered that you DID...
Surely MY long winded posts would keep me in constant trouble if you were a MOD ... .... I guess I don't have to ask: Wouldn't you agree? ... but then who's going to use the emoticons when I'm banned?
All I ask is that you don't call me Shirley [Surely]... _________________ Rule = win titles
Good judgment comes from experience and a lot of that comes from bad judgment. - Will Rogers ... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
55 Franchise Player
Joined: 04 Jan 2008 Posts: 12092
|
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LA_Lakers_Rule wrote: | ^ Uh.... You don't expect me to agree with that, RIGHT? .... But then I'll admit you've got a point... .... I have to say I'm a bit surprised you actually read all of that dribble... but I'm flattered that you DID...
Surely MY long winded posts would keep me in constant trouble if you were a MOD ... .... I guess I don't have to ask: Wouldn't you agree? ... but then who's going to use the emoticons when I'm banned?
All I ask is that you don't call me Shirley [Surely]... |
Nobody uses emoticons as well as you LLR
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
GSDunk Star Player
Joined: 08 Oct 2001 Posts: 1875 Location: Santa Monica
|
Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Linda seems to have taken over lakersanity's old role of locking threads throughout the day and I see Alpha must have been a little jealous because today he locked a thread that has us all scratching our heads.
http://forums.lakersground.net/viewtopic.php?t=142990
Can anyone explain this one?? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90304 Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
GSDunk wrote: | Linda seems to have taken over lakersanity's old role of locking threads throughout the day and I see Alpha must have been a little jealous because today he locked a thread that has us all scratching our heads.
http://forums.lakersground.net/viewtopic.php?t=142990
Can anyone explain this one?? |
Oh I don't know, maybe because 4 of the first 7 posts were personal attacks? _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
Back to top |
|
|
GSDunk Star Player
Joined: 08 Oct 2001 Posts: 1875 Location: Santa Monica
|
Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
24 wrote: | GSDunk wrote: | Linda seems to have taken over lakersanity's old role of locking threads throughout the day and I see Alpha must have been a little jealous because today he locked a thread that has us all scratching our heads.
http://forums.lakersground.net/viewtopic.php?t=142990
Can anyone explain this one?? |
Oh I don't know, maybe because 4 of the first 7 posts were personal attacks? |
I've noticed this trend of over-moderation ever since you, GT, and Linda started your new gigs. Coincidence?? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90304 Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
GSDunk wrote: | 24 wrote: | GSDunk wrote: | Linda seems to have taken over lakersanity's old role of locking threads throughout the day and I see Alpha must have been a little jealous because today he locked a thread that has us all scratching our heads.
http://forums.lakersground.net/viewtopic.php?t=142990
Can anyone explain this one?? |
Oh I don't know, maybe because 4 of the first 7 posts were personal attacks? |
I've noticed this trend of over-moderation ever since you, GT, and Linda started your new gigs. Coincidence?? |
What does that have to do with the thread in question, which wasn't locked by any of the 3 of us you mentioned? _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ChefLinda Moderator
Joined: 20 Sep 2006 Posts: 24158 Location: Boston
|
Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
GSDunk wrote: | 24 wrote: | GSDunk wrote: | Linda seems to have taken over lakersanity's old role of locking threads throughout the day and I see Alpha must have been a little jealous because today he locked a thread that has us all scratching our heads.
http://forums.lakersground.net/viewtopic.php?t=142990
Can anyone explain this one?? |
Oh I don't know, maybe because 4 of the first 7 posts were personal attacks? |
I've noticed this trend of over-moderation ever since you, GT, and Linda started your new gigs. Coincidence?? |
More moderation isn't necessarily the same thing as over-moderation. But I could see how it might seem that way. DB added 3 new moderators at the same time for a reason. He wanted more moderation. So no, it's not a coincidence, it was planned.
And I think you think I lock a lot more threads than I actually do. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mark_in_Tulsa Franchise Player
Joined: 11 Jul 2005 Posts: 12977
|
Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
GSDunk wrote: | 24 wrote: | GSDunk wrote: | Linda seems to have taken over lakersanity's old role of locking threads throughout the day and I see Alpha must have been a little jealous because today he locked a thread that has us all scratching our heads.
http://forums.lakersground.net/viewtopic.php?t=142990
Can anyone explain this one?? |
Oh I don't know, maybe because 4 of the first 7 posts were personal attacks? |
I've noticed this trend of over-moderation ever since you, GT, and Linda started your new gigs. Coincidence?? |
I agree. I think the site has been a lot better and cleaner with a lot less of the bull(bleep) since we got fresh new mods. _________________ Think about how stupid the avg. person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
---George Carlin |
|
Back to top |
|
|
GSDunk Star Player
Joined: 08 Oct 2001 Posts: 1875 Location: Santa Monica
|
Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
For the record....
Although I'm obviously not a huge fan of censorship and occasionally I'll piss and moan about threads being locked up, I do think this board is run beautifully and feel we have the best, hardest working Mods on the net.
DB has assembled an unbelievable staff and even though we don't all agree with every thing that goes on here, and there'll be an occasional squabble, DB and his moderators are the main reason this is the best message board on the internet.
The additions of ChefLinda, GT and 24 were great choices, and we can see the impact they've had already. The board seems cleaner than ever with fewer sabotaged threads, crank posters, and trolls just here to stir things up. Fantastic start for these guys
If I offended anyone, my apologies. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90304 Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
GSDunk wrote: | For the record....
Although I'm obviously not a huge fan of censorship and occasionally I'll piss and moan about threads being locked up, I do think this board is run beautifully and feel we have the best, hardest working Mods on the net.
DB has assembled an unbelievable staff and even though we don't all agree with every thing that goes on here, and there'll be an occasional squabble, DB and his moderators are the main reason this is the best message board on the internet.
The additions of ChefLinda, GT and 24 were great choices, and we can see the impact they've had already. The board seems cleaner than ever with fewer sabotaged threads, crank posters, and trolls just here to stir things up. Fantastic start for these guys
If I offended anyone, my apologies. |
Classy post. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
Back to top |
|
|
GSDunk Star Player
Joined: 08 Oct 2001 Posts: 1875 Location: Santa Monica
|
Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
24 wrote: | GSDunk wrote: | For the record....
Although I'm obviously not a huge fan of censorship and occasionally I'll piss and moan about threads being locked up, I do think this board is run beautifully and feel we have the best, hardest working Mods on the net.
DB has assembled an unbelievable staff and even though we don't all agree with every thing that goes on here, and there'll be an occasional squabble, DB and his moderators are the main reason this is the best message board on the internet.
The additions of ChefLinda, GT and 24 were great choices, and we can see the impact they've had already. The board seems cleaner than ever with fewer sabotaged threads, crank posters, and trolls just here to stir things up. Fantastic start for these guys
If I offended anyone, my apologies. |
Classy post. |
Thank you 24. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SuperboyReformed Star Player
Joined: 07 Oct 2012 Posts: 4083
|
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi everyone, just for the record this is "superboy". For the sake of full disclosure, I want everyone to know I've created a new account with a different email. Before you ban me again, let me apologize:
I'm sorry for being an annoying poster here, and I will not do those things anymore. I honestly don't understand why it (this original thread) led to a permanent band, but it doesn't matter. My goal is not to be a problem but a helpful person. When I'm being annoying, I'm trying to be funny or creative or something along those lines. I normally never make personal attacks or anything like that, even when others are doing it to me. But I do constantly provoke people with ridiculous scenarios and conspiracy theories, but again, I won't do that anymore.
I was initially ok with the permanent band; I actually thought it was only temporary. Before I created this account, I attempted contacting the moderators like it says in the ban message, but there is no contact information anywhere...so it's sort of a pseudo-helpful message. So those crazy trades happened and now I can't stay away, so I did this.
I feel the reason for my ban were the conspiracy theories. I don't know why they bother people, but they do, so I won't do them anymore. I also feel questioning the mods contributed (not sure), but I obviously wasn't that rude about it. Unfortunately, rude or not, it still is a hassle for the mods, and it's not good to make extra work for them, I get it. No more of that.
So like my name says, I am now a reformed superboy. Please allow me to stay.
PS
LA_Lakers_Rule: thank you for kind of/sort of sticking up for me. I appreciate it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rwongega Franchise Player
Joined: 20 Jul 2005 Posts: 20510 Location: UCLA -> NY
|
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SuperboyReformed wrote: | Hi everyone, just for the record this is "superboy". For the sake of full disclosure, I want everyone to know I've created a new account with a different email. Before you ban me again, let me apologize:
I'm sorry for being an annoying poster here, and I will not do those things anymore. I honestly don't understand why it (this original thread) led to a permanent band, but it doesn't matter. My goal is not to be a problem but a helpful person. When I'm being annoying, I'm trying to be funny or creative or something along those lines. I normally never make personal attacks or anything like that, even when others are doing it to me. But I do constantly provoke people with ridiculous scenarios and conspiracy theories, but again, I won't do that anymore.
I was initially ok with the permanent band; I actually thought it was only temporary. Before I created this account, I attempted contacting the moderators like it says in the ban message, but there is no contact information anywhere...so it's sort of a pseudo-helpful message. So those crazy trades happened and now I can't stay away, so I did this.
I feel the reason for my ban were the conspiracy theories. I don't know why they bother people, but they do, so I won't do them anymore. I also feel questioning the mods contributed (not sure), but I obviously wasn't that rude about it. Unfortunately, rude or not, it still is a hassle for the mods, and it's not good to make extra work for them, I get it. No more of that.
So like my name says, I am now a reformed superboy. Please allow me to stay.
PS
LA_Lakers_Rule: thank you for kind of/sort of sticking up for me. I appreciate it. |
You deserve a hundredth chance. Just like Mike Brown.
P.S.: LA_Lakers_Rule was abducted by emoticons. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SuperboyReformed Star Player
Joined: 07 Oct 2012 Posts: 4083
|
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks rwo. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|