Official Everybody Edits Forums

willard b

Guest

Rules: Clause

For all people under 13 reading this: pleas vacate, I don't want to get in trouble with the mod-o-****.

Clauses: The staff reserves the right to remove content, warn and ban users at any time for any or no reason. These rules are subject to change at any time. We reserve the right to remove content at our discretion, and are not liable for any user-submitted content.

Am I the only person that thinks this is not only unfair, but- flat outrageous?

Because that is saying mods can edit out peoples opinions, and quite easily edit peoples content to their own will. Even if I were Cyclone- or Chris, I would know better than to trust people with that power. I think the clause should be re-visioned to more reasonable terms.

____________________________________________________________
Also about my sig(related)

My original sig was:

Doesn't the size of my sig, just, PI$$, you, off?

Our official WBcrew site is here: http://wbcrew.webs.com/

I got on today and found this:

Doesn't the size of my sig, just, PI$$, you, off?   Yes, as you do -D55
http://i51.tinypic.com/16hnot0.png
Our official WBcrew site is here: http://wbcrew.webs.com/

Why must you (as a whole community) accept such behavior from your moderators, administrators, etc.?

Last edited by willard b (May 21 2011 11:21:00 am)

Chewy

Banned

Re: Rules: Clause

You're over reacting. This has never been a problem. Also it's Cyclones website so he can do what he wants with it.

Rurigok

Guest

Re: Rules: Clause

Could you please provide some examples of where this has become a problem?

NikK

Guest

Re: Rules: Clause

They usually don't even change opinion, just bad words or whatever. Except maybe, you're a bit... you know, I mean, "not-for-kids topics"...

Betaguy

Guest

Re: Rules: Clause

This hasnt been a problem... w8, what about TGT?
Didnt he got a warning for an unwritten rule, as jakery said?

All I can say is... this may be a problem later...

willard b

Guest

Re: Rules: Clause

Could you please provide some examples of where this has become a problem?

I did, that just shows that you can't read. In the about my sig is a fine example.
  Different55 Warned me for writing PI$$, wich isn't a bad word. Much less he insulted my with that little " Yes, as you do" remark.

They usually don't even change opinion, just bad words or whatever. Except maybe, you're a bit... you know, I mean, "not-for-kids topics"...

Well say it you wuss.
  I'm sorry but forums in general aren't meant for thumb sucking baby's, most active forum members don't care about things like that.

Last edited by willard b (May 21 2011 11:36:07 am)

JadElClemens

Member

From: Colorado, USA

Joined: 2015-02-15

Posts: 4,559

Re: Rules: Clause

Your sig was too big. That's not even an unwritten rule, there's a clause dedicated to sig sizes.

That rule is just to protect us from noobs that go around saying

LOL IT'S NOT IN THE RULES J00 CKANT DOO NYTHIN

IF something they're doing is deemed 'wrong', the mods will stop it.

As for you thinking the mods will abuse this power:
The existing mods know what they're doing when they pick new mods. They don't just pick any old **** and give him mod powers. They pick someone they know will use their powers correctly and for good reasons. If this clause was a problem, as you make it out to be, don't you think there'd already be a topic about this?

---

I hate tall signatures.

Rurigok

Guest

Re: Rules: Clause

Willardb: he warned you for having a signature that was MUCH too large, and indeed it was not in compliance with the rules.

An administrator's word is final, and if we see a moderator abusing their power, or get complaints about a moderator, we do investigate and action is taken.

willard b

Guest

Re: Rules: Clause

Your sig was too big. That's not even an unwritten rule, there's a clause dedicated to sig sizes.

That rule is just to protect us from noobs that go around saying

LOL IT'S NOT IN THE RULES J00 CKANT DOO NYTHIN

IF something they're doing is deemed 'wrong', the mods will stop it.

As for you thinking the mods will abuse this power:
The existing mods know what they're doing when they pick new mods. They don't just pick any old **** and give him mod powers. They pick someone they know will use their powers correctly and for good reasons. If this clause was a problem, as you make it out to be, don't you think there'd already be a topic about this?

My sig was not too large, and it complied with all rules, my image was not too big either.
And I made this topic because there wasn't one/ because no one had the balls to speak up.

Willardb: he warned you for having a signature that was MUCH too large, and indeed it was not in compliance with the rules.

An administrator's word is final, and if we see a moderator abusing their power, or get complaints about a moderator, we do investigate and action is taken.

Then please confirm that D55 was told that nothing was wrong with my sig, and that his little comment was verry rude. Also; it didn't comply with "...Please be respectful of your fellow players and don?t forget that there is a human on the other end of the keyboard. " In the Be Nice section.

If something was wrong with my sig- Please- WHAT WAS IT!?

Last edited by willard b (May 21 2011 3:15:15 pm)

supadorf24

Member

Joined: 2015-02-26

Posts: 2,675

Re: Rules: Clause

It's not your website. If you don't like the rules, leave the forum. Simple as that. You seem to be the only one here that has a beef with the mods.

JadElClemens

Member

From: Colorado, USA

Joined: 2015-02-15

Posts: 4,559

Re: Rules: Clause

Dude, your sig was too big. the limit is 350 pixels. my sig, iirc, is around 200pix tall, and you could fit my picture into yours about 2 or 3 times.

---

I hate tall signatures.

TheGreenTroll

Guest

Re: Rules: Clause

Betaguy: Yes, I got a warning by quoting a long post. My second warning did I get by censoring words in a post, the mods thought I was swearing so I received a second warning. The problem with the second warning was that I wasn't swearing, as I made clear when I explained it to the mods.

On topic: "The staff reserves the right to remove content, warn and ban users at any time for any or no reason."

The part with "no reason" is what I dislikes with that rule. In my opinion, it has been that rule that I've been a "victim" of. I believe that rule is, as willard b says, outrageous. The rule could be a synonym to fascism.

JadElClemens

Member

From: Colorado, USA

Joined: 2015-02-15

Posts: 4,559

Re: Rules: Clause

I do suppose the no reason part is a bit suspicious, I think this rule needs to be reconsidered. Not eliminated, but reconsidered.

---

I hate tall signatures.

D-rock2308

Guest

Re: Rules: Clause

Some mods just shouldnt be mods. *shakes head*

But yes, your sig was huge.

Kaosslasher

Guest

Re: Rules: Clause

On topic: "The staff reserves the right to remove content, warn and ban users at any time for any or no reason."

I agree, I got banned for a day or hour... I cant remember, because I posted a post that was not off-topic, nor rude, and I wasn't breaking any rules, All I did was post after differents55 post that said: " Next person to post gets a day ( or hour ) ban. "

Sure i shouldn't have posted, but still, i say thats abusing his powers just a tiny bit.

dol257

Guest

Re: Rules: Clause

<3 mods, nuf said. abused power means removal by other mods!

Rurigok

Guest

Re: Rules: Clause

I trust in the mod's and the rest of the moderation staff's ability to keep things fair and just.   If you have a problem with a moderator, be it a complaint, an appeal, or something else of that nature, feel free to send me a message and trust me, I will investigate.

The reason for the 'no reason' statement is mostly for the fact that the owner of the forums or any of the staff won't be weighted down by technicalities when enforcing proper forum behavior.   Must we wait for someone to break a rule to stop a topic that is getting way out of hand?   No.

I'll be the one to make sure no moderator gets out of hand.   I have had to give out a little discipline before when needed.

TheGreenTroll

Guest

Re: Rules: Clause

I trust in the mod's and the rest of the moderation staff's ability to keep things fair and just.   If you have a problem with a moderator, be it a complaint, an appeal, or something else of that nature, feel free to send me a message and trust me, I will investigate.

The reason for the 'no reason' statement is mostly for the fact that the owner of the forums or any of the staff won't be weighted down by technicalities when enforcing proper forum behavior.   Must we wait for someone to break a rule to stop a topic that is getting way out of hand?   No.

I'll be the one to make sure no moderator gets out of hand.   I have had to give out a little discipline before when needed.

The problem is that both the warnings I received was invalid according to the rules (except for the rule we are talking about). Therefore I draw the conclusion that I received the warnings because of "no reason".

Different55

Forum Admin

Joined: 2015-02-07

Posts: 16,575

Re: Rules: Clause

Doesn't the size of my sig, just, PI$$, you, off?   Yes, as you do -D55

I was just stating my opinion. You are kind of a jerk sometimes.

---

"Sometimes failing a leap of faith is better than inching forward"
- ShinsukeIto

willard b

Guest

Re: Rules: Clause

Doesn't the size of my sig, just, PI$$, you, off?   Yes, as you do -D55

I was just stating my opinion. You are kind of a jerk sometimes.

Well next time try to state it some where else.;)

Obnoxious sigs are not cool.

Now that is a little over doing it :/

Betaguy: Yes, I got a warning by quoting a long post. My second warning did I get by censoring words in a post, the mods thought I was swearing so I received a second warning. The problem with the second warning was that I wasn't swearing, as I made clear when I explained it to the mods.

On topic: "The staff reserves the right to remove content, warn and ban users at any time for any or no reason."

The part with "no reason" is what I dislikes with that rule. In my opinion, it has been that rule that I've been a "victim" of. I believe that rule is, as willard b says, outrageous. The rule could be a synonym to fascism.

Thanks, finaly some one knows what I mean.

your sig was huge

Ok, explain why it took so long for someone to notice it? Or why it took so long for a mod to see it?
Being; my sig was there there the greater part of a month.

____________________________________________
If I get warned for quoting a long post I'm gonna kill someone.

Last edited by willard b (May 23 2011 3:03:41 am)

TheGreenTroll

Guest

Re: Rules: Clause

____________________________________________
If I get warned for quoting a long post I'm gonna kill someone.

Don't be surprised if you get warned for quoting a long post, I received a warning for that. There is nothing in the rules about it but they gave me one, maybe because they like to have power.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L397TWLwrUU[/youtube]

jakery

Guest

Re: Rules: Clause

Clauses: The staff reserves the right to remove content, warn and ban users at any time for any or no reason. These rules are subject to change at any time. We reserve the right to remove content at our discretion, and are not liable for any user-submitted content.

Am I the only person that thinks this is not only unfair, but- flat outrageous?

Because that is saying mods can edit out peoples opinions, and quite easily edit peoples content to their own will. Even if I were Cyclone- or Chris, I would know better than to trust people with that power. I think the clause should be re-visioned to more reasonable terms.

We aren't editing content to our own will. The mods don't magically have all their -reps removed (or +reps, in chewy's case). Immature posts aren't systematically deleted. Posts where mods are accused of corrupt behavior don't vanish overnight.

But when a user posts something that doesn't benefit the community in any way, shape, or form, the mods can deal with it; Our hands aren't tied just because it's not written in the rules. This is common practice on web sites all over the Internet. See for yourself.

Cyclopsicle

Guest

Re: Rules: Clause

your sig was huge

Ok, explain why it took so long for someone to notice it? Or why it took so long for a mod to see it?
Being; my sig was there there the greater part of a month.

Maybe because you only have 43 posts?

jakery

Guest

Re: Rules: Clause

^^ That sounds about right.

Cyclopsicle

Guest

Re: Rules: Clause

Yes, cause 43 out of how many? 100K+, we will see your sig right when you put it up eh? Exactly at the momment you put it there we shall see it in the 43 out of 100K+ posts right?