Johnny75

[Jolemai]

I make far too many funny posts to scrap the laugh react. Without that validation I'd be half the man I am

Happy to help

 

[White Wolf]

Or people could just be grown up and just use the laughing emoji as a response to something posted intended as funny rather than a sarcastic holier than thou response.

I agree in principle but it won't happen and punishing people for their use of a laugh emoji is a bit daft.

 

[Del Woppio]

Yes but equally if the emoji's hurt peoples feelings, then we should think about removing/limiting them.

I think the key thing to remember is that what I want is more important than that

 

[prawnking]

Or people could just be grown up and just use the laughing emoji as a response to something posted intended as funny rather than a sarcastic holier than thou response.

They won't though, will they? And what are the consequences for that then?

It's ok saying Johnny never changed/will never change but there are plenty of people on this very thread who won't change either, and use those emojis in a pass-agg, demeaning way, it happens to me daily. Not that I give a fuck, but that's not the point? People need to pick a lane. Either we're trying to make a more sensitive and progressive forum with work email vibes or we're not?

It's literally been pointed out as a major factor in the bullying allegations, don't think we should be so quick to not at least discuss it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty liberal and as I've said before I wouldn't remove anything or ban anyone permanently ideally, but that doesn't seem to be the majority opinion?

 

[leedswolf]

I agree in principle but it won't happen and punishing people for their use of a laugh emoji is a bit daft.

Swear filters, limiting emojis, etc is too excessive for me. Posters should ultimately be (and held) responsible for their acts without having a nanny (overprotective or undue interference) regime.

 

[prawnking]

Swear filters, limiting emojis, etc is too excessive for me. Posters should ultimately be (and held) responsible for their acts without having a nanny (overprotective or undue interference) regime.

So what if all your smart arse emoji's, or Mark's (for example), upset someone and make their experience negative and they report you? Happy to take responsibility for that?

 

[leedswolf]

So what if all your smart arse emoji's, or Mark's (for example), upset someone and make their experience negative and they report you? Happy to take responsibility for that?

Yep, I'm happy to take resposibility like I would in the real world. Are you happy to take responsibility for your's?

However, I don't see why I should take responsibility for Mark's actions.

 

[prawnking]

Easy to say that, let's see. The holier than thou types rarely like that light being shone back on them.

And I've already been banned previously, took responsibility for it, avoided the area where it happened and moved on.

 

[sycophantia]

Yes but equally if the emoji's hurt peoples feelings, then we should think about removing/limiting them.

Removing people's feelings seems a bit harsh

 

[leedswolf]

Easy to say that, let's see. The holier than thou types rarely like that light being shone back on them.

And I've already been banned previously, took responsibility for it, avoided the area where it happened and moved on.

"Holier than though"? FFS. You asked, I answered, you twist.

Typical of you...

 

[sycophantia]

They won't though, will they? And what are the consequences for that then?

It's ok saying Johnny never changed/will never change but there are plenty of people on this very thread who won't change either, and use those emojis in a pass-agg, demeaning way, it happens to me daily. Not that I give a fuck, but that's not the point? People need to pick a lane. Either we're trying to make a more sensitive and progressive forum with work email vibes or we're not?

It's literally been pointed out as a major factor in the bullying allegations, don't think we should be so quick to not at least discuss it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty liberal and as I've said before I wouldn't remove anything or ban anyone permanently ideally, but that doesn't seem to be the majority opinion?

Oh I don't really want a nanny filter, none of it bothers me that much, tbh I just thought this thread was one for general whingeing and I didn't want to be left out.

 

[Jack Regan]

One giant facepalm emoji could describe the state of this forum the last few days. Where's Captain Picard when you need him?

 

[Jolemai]

If you see or experience "reaction sniping", then what is stopping you from reporting it? @prawnking

 

[Lupo]

One giant facepalm emoji could describe the stage of this forum the last few days. Where's Captain Picard when you need him?

We may currently be 'at war', just as well we all support the same club (except Mark and that anti-VAR dude)

 

[prawnking]

If you see or experience "reaction sniping", then what is stopping you from reporting it? @prawnking

The fact that Johnny has been denounced by multiple forumites on this very thread as a 'snitch' after a moderator revealed he had used the report function several times, and this was then used to count against his character? Perhaps?

 

[Jolemai]

Of course accountability and the forum rules are important, but how does Johnny's murky ban square with the amended rules? I've asked several times with no answer from the mod team if he's had 10 bans or more since the amendment, met with radio silence. Because of course he hasn't.

Multiple times sent off away by the Mods will start to add up the days away. 1st and 2nd time will be just the 1 day. 3rd time it will jump to 3 days, 4th time - 4 days etc .
Hit an 7th time and look forward to a month off. If you hit double figures, then it will be discussed whether you actually want to be on here.

Is that what happened?

I mean, the original forum Old Testament rules state 'We may terminate your access to all or any part of the Service at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice' so on that basis we're all potentially fucked if the powers that be are so inclined!

As for this, November's amendment didn't give everyone a clean slate. If you're really interested, research into what hasn't been hidden yourself over the past eleven months. Or better yet, DM an Admin for clarity.

 

[Alan]

The fact that Johnny has been denounced by multiple forumites on this very thread as a 'snitch' after a moderator revealed he had used the report function several times, and this was then used to count against his character? Perhaps?

When was this?

 

[Kenny]

DM an Admin for clarity.

Please make sure that is @Langers though...

 

[prawnking]

As for this, November's amendment didn't give everyone a clean slate. If you're really interested, research into what hasn't been hidden yourself over the past eleven months. Or better yet, DM an Admin for clarity.

Well actually this very thread was set up in response to a member of the admin team suggesting a place to debate and ask questions around this topic. Which is why I asked questions on this thread rather than DM'd anyone. I also thought others might be interested in the answers.

Are you a mod? You seem to be quite clear and definitive on what is a pretty muddy amendment.

So they really weren't 'New Rules' and there was no 'going forward we will be working on this basis', and rather than being a 'from now on' set of rules, all the number of offence quotations covered, what? The whole life of the forum?

So Mark's 7 day ban in 2013 still counts and he could be permanently banned if he hit double figures*? Can a mod (i.e. not you) clarify?



*sorry Mark, not singling you out here maliciously, just a good example

 

[Jolemai]

Please make sure that is @Langers though...

This is why you need a "junior" Admin in addition to more Moderators...