Who Runs or Owns CFC?

[Berzerker]

I'm skeptical to that notion. I mean sure there might have been some cases like that, but it doesn't seem like that's some sort of systematic thing. In any case why didn't you report the other poster to the mods?

Well, I do it to people I don't like. But I like you!

We've had some good debates but I imagine what happens is a mod gets a complaint and they dont bother to read enough to know what happened and instead rely on the complainer's judgment and integrity. But y'all know me, I'm fairly polite so it aint like I'm trying to be nasty with people.

It was what, a 1 point, 2 point infraction? AFAIK, you get banned when your points reach a certain limit. Pat must've been near that limit, and this pushed him over the edge. It's not like it's a ban specifically for that one thing.

What is the limit? I got 5 pts (2,2,1) within a few days from 1 thread. Most already expired, I just found that info on my account.

[Bill3000]

Yeah... you ban them for nothing
What a joke...
And people thought we were bad...

Someone being banned on CFC means that broke the rules ~4-8 times (8 points) within a month. That's pretty generous for a ban. And besides, CFC is very generous in allowing constant rulebreakers to be able to continue to post when they very well know the rules of the forum.

[Legend]

Yeah... you ban them for nothing
What a joke...
And people thought we were bad...

Apparently, whenever we ban someone, they come here. You should thank us for helping with Apolyton's membership drive.

[rah]

Don't you guys find it a bit ironic that you come here to defend your practices that no one at your site are allowed to discuss there.

[Ecofarm]

Come on, Pat, be fair. You know it's against the rules. What do you expect the moderators to do?

And seriously, it's not like there's some sort of conspiracy to get rid of certain viewpoints, that's just absurd; there are clearly defined rules (even if not specifically stated in the forum rules, what is and is not acceptable is well known, especially for experienced posters like Pat and Eco). Whether you agree with those rules or not, you know what the limits are, and you know that if you want to keep posting, you should stay within them. I mean, okay, cool, you might feel you want to stand up to injustice on the internet and the curtailment of your right to speak, or whatever ideals you think a forum should adhere to, but don't get surprised and angry when you are infracted for something you know you are going to be infracted for.

Those rules are not enforced against some people. Forma can call someone a delusional crazy person, and nothing happens to him. If someone looks at Forma the wrong way, they get infracted. When someone else would get 2-3 infractions over a couple pages for a few blazing posts, Forma gets 2 pages magically erased by mods. To think the rules are enforced equally is profoundly naive.

They protect the quasi-pedos and muslims.

For a minute, just think about the fact that I am permbanned and Forma is a fortunate son. That should tell you something about the powers that be on that site. Also, Narz is coddled for his love of 13 year olds. I get infractions for arguing with Sharwood about how it is wrong for a 40 year old male to seek out 13 year old females. He doesn't get any infractions, of course... because he is the kind of person they like.

If I had a kid, they would not be allowed on that site, I can assure you of this.

[Patroklos]

But that post by Pat is one of the reasons why the rule is there. If the PDMA rule hadn't been enforced, it would've turned into pages and pages of discussion. As it was, that thread died on, like, the next post. And not infracting it would just lead to more and more of the same type of thing. So, sure, you can disagree with the premise for the rule, but it wasn't a misinterpretation of the rules by the moderators. Or you could even go with the argument that it was a misinterpretation. But it's a misinterpretation that anyone who spends as much time on CFC as Pat would know of. So he shouldn't expect anything less than an infraction.

1.) Mentioning the simple fact that someone is banned is not a violation of the PDMA, DISCUSSIOON of mod actions is agains the PDA. If I had said:

"Ecofarm is banned, what do you think about it?"

or

"Ecofarm is banned, those mods are ****ing *******s!"

they would have a point. As it was, all I did was mention the fact that Ecofarm was indeed banned which was entirely relevant to the completely mod unrelated discussion at hand.

If three years from now we are discussing where old posters we remembered went and someone says "Oh yeah, I remember that Ecofarm guy, I think he was banned three years ago" should that person be banned for it.

However, weren't you the one who commented on my comment about Ecofarm the very next post? OMG CAM WAS DISCUSSING MOD ACTIONS!!! BAN HIM!!!

2.) They can assign as many points as they want for whatever violation they want, or just ban you outright. There is no check or accountability to their power.

3.) I do spend a lot of time there, which is why I know most of the infractions they give have nothing to do with the rules at all and more so with the whims of their egos.

[Bill3000]

1.) Mentioning the simple fact that someone is banned is not a violation of the PDMA, DISCUSSIOON of mod actions is agains the PDA.

How on earth is the banning of a poster not a moderator action? You should know from the past that threads and posts discussing the bannings of specific posters are not allowed, and that threads and posts about it have been closed/deleted/infracted. It's pretty obvious that the CFC mods don't want an incident like the YYYH/Spink episode on Apolyton.

Don't you guys find it a bit ironic that you come here to defend your practices that no one at your site are allowed to discuss there.

What are you talking about? We certainly can and do discuss rule implementation on CFC, just not specific moderator actions.

[Patroklos]

Statment of fact /= discussion. This is even more so when the statement of fact was entirely relevant to a line of discussion that had nothing to do with mods but rather my avatar and how people confuse it with Ecofarms. This is a simple fact, end of story.

[SlowwHand]

The question remains, why the need to discuss CFC here? Because they'll ban your ass over any little thing there? Excuse me, give you points.

[DinoDoc]

The question remains, why the need to discuss CFC here?

I'm more interested in what we've done to make them think we care who is and isn't banned over there so we can stop doing it.

[SlowwHand]

Another excellent point.

[rah]

How on earth is the banning of a poster not a moderator action? You should know from the past that threads and posts discussing the bannings of specific posters are not allowed, and that threads and posts about it have been closed/deleted/infracted. It's pretty obvious that the CFC mods don't want an incident like the YYYH/Spink episode on Apolyton.


What are you talking about? We certainly can and do discuss rule implementation on CFC, just not specific moderator actions.

It seems to me you're discussing specific moderator actions here.

[Grandpa Troll]

It seems to me you're discussing specific moderator actions here.

+2 rah

**actually rah gets plus 1.25 wile his ferret rings the bell at .75 of a point for his staring

[ZEE]

maybe if they kiss enough mod butt over here a few pages of infractions will "magically disappear" over there

[rah]

REALITY CHECK