Moderation Issue need clarification

[Otherside]

since when are moderators allowed to change your location and avatar ?

PIE as a location was hardly offensive O_o ?

and if a avatar is deemed offensive why is a moderator allowed to choose another one for you ?.

I think these are blatant issues of power abuse. And if a moderator has a problem he should either remove said avatar or comment instead of adding there own avatar and comments.

[Peet]

This is an affront to the free world! Stand strong brother, together we will weather the storm!

[smoth]

I LOLED

[lurker]

no direct conclusions can be made that i am mocking TFC

No direct conclusions, uh huh..

[Otherside]

isnt airing out stuff that is said in PM against policy ?

[lurker]

If you hadn't made a public topic about it yourself, that quote would have been in poor taste. But you did, and it's only half a sentence.

[Otherside]

If you hadn't made a public topic about it yourself, that quote would have been in poor taste. But you did, and it's only half a sentence.

I wanted a clarifcation of moderation rules

Read the topic title and it clearly states what this topic is about.

im asking why a moderator is allowed to change your details at will?

Im also wondering why you felt justified to change my location but that is better left to PM because I have the decency not to show private messages.

[lurker]

You weren't exactly making much use of your location, and afaik you can set that back whenever you want.

I quoted that because it shows that you don't seem to take this seriously despite accusations of power abuse.

By the way, deleting is just another form of changing.

[Otherside]

Deleting is different.

The use of my location is up to me and if it does not offend (which it didnt) there was no reason to change it just because a moderator "feels like it".

Inserting your own words and pictures that the user themselves might not approve of is an offense within itself and poor moderation in my opinion.

And as a moderator you have still not clarified the rules.

its like putting words into peoples mouth's

[Peet]

Are you implying that because there is no specific rule against images designed to attack particular users, you are automatically entitled to use one?

[lurker]

When you put something designed to mock someone in that box next to all your posts you waive control over its contents for a while. Sometimes if half a post is breaking rules the entire thing gets deleted, etc.

What was your question again? How long? I guess forever.

[Otherside]

still you could have just deleted the picture which in truth is not even offensive but people just like presuming. (how many moderators/users had argh/smoth take piss images)

You have still yet to answer why you felt it was appropriate to remove my location and fill it with your own drivel(which is offensive itself) and give me a unamusing avatar ?

If i got a liche and put hur dur next to it that would be offending licho ?

If i got a picture of quantum of solace and put hur dur next to it id be offending quantum?

If i got a picture of a cow and put hur dur next to it id be offending warc?

you really need to put things into perspective and stop assuming things.

[lurker]

I saw that your [block of info next to your posts] was in violation, and so I changed your [block of info next to your posts]. If you're unhappy, well, it is a punishment.

And I didn't assume.

[Otherside]

A avatar and location are different altogether.

A warning is a punishment.

putting your own words/images into my account is poor moderation which you still haven't answered for. You still haven't given a valid reason why you chose to change rather than delete.

I thought administrators/moderators were supposed to be held accountable for there actions and should give proper reasoning behind there decisions.

and "punishment" is not a good excuse.

[Peet]

putting your own words/images into my account is poor moderation which you still havent answered for.

The moderation team is not controlled by and does not answer to the general community population - much less those who require moderation. This is not a democracy.

[lurker]

I thought administrators/moderators were supposed to be held accountable for there actions and should give proper reasoning behind there decisions.

Not really, no. I'm responding to be helpful. I'm sorry you disagree about it being an appropriate punishment.

[Otherside]

putting your own words/images into my account is poor moderation which you still havent answered for.

The moderation team is not controlled by and does not answer to the general community population - much less those who require moderation. This is not a democracy.

when a thread is locked a moderator gives reason why its locked.

The same as when you are warned the moderator points to what felony you were guilty of.

Now i want to see why lurker felt justified to put his drivel into my account rather than just delete .

[lurker]

Now i want to see why lurker felt justified to put his drivel into my account rather than just delete .

Yeah, a few people asked why I didn't just ban you.

[Otherside]

Now i want to see why lurker felt justified to put his drivel into my account rather than just delete .

Yeah, a few people asked why I didn't just ban you.

I know most of this community dislikes me(the feeling is mutual), difference of opinion isn't a justifiable reason for a ban.

[Peet]

The term "difference of opinion" is not the appropriate one for most of your behaviour.