BuzzerBeater Forums

Do I have to be a nice guy? I am just being myself and I know I can't be loved by everybody- you had your fair share of bans too, so don't even try to pretend you are better than me.

In a few cases my oh so negative input brought valuable changes, maybe that's why I am still around...

I for one am impressed with your patience. If I were a GM I most likely would have done something like delete every single one of Mike Franks posts in this forum so far as he is borderline trolling now.

Hats off for your tolerance.

Imagine the rules set a line a 100. We usually accept people to go to 120. Then, some users go to 130 repeatedly, they got sanctionned. Their accepted line progressively goes closer to 100 due to that.

Imagine the rules set a line of 100. You usually accept people go to 120. Sometimes though misunderstandings occur, sometimes due to language, and sometimes to someone not reading something properly, or even mistaking one user for another, and a post that only goes to 90 on your scale gets deleted incorrectly. Then the person who went to 90 would feel aggrieved.

Let alone what happened to me when someone complained about me paying him a compliment so it was deleted. That on your scale would have scored 0.

I propose that, sometimes in the future, we do a "Line is at 100 month" to see if it suits people.

I predict a lot of people will have posts deleted that I would score in the 80s and 90s.

So what ? We allow everything ?

Not even going to respond to that as I haven't asked for "everything." What I would like to see is an admission that GMs make mistakes.

Moderation is not an exact science, it's not head or tail

Well, that's not quite an admission is it?

You would say they are 90, moderation think they are 110, other people will think they are 130.

The only thing important to me there is the part where I say they are 90. You can argue its 110 all you like, but if I know my 90 from my 110, even when the 100 we're talking about is imaginary, because really, that's all the rules here are. Basically you're right; what is against the rules is what the BBs think is against the rules, because as Mike Franks says its not clear what the rules are. And where we don't know what the rules are and what punishments might follow, we're going to get people who feel they're on the wrong end of a decision. Especially in a case where a previously punished user is treated more harshly for doing less than someone who is commiting their first "offence."

I'm truly sorry that you think we're in some sort of circus here. I don't feel that I'm being unfair, except perhaps that it always seems to be you I'm replying to, for which I am also sorry. This is certainly not personal. I've never particularly liked unfairness, and when I see it, I feel free to comment on it.

You keep saying its the BBs who decide what's allowed and apply the rules through the GMs. That implies the GMs operate like bots without any thought, which I think we both know is wrong. I don't argue that the BBs can decide what they like. However I too can decide what I like, and when I don't like something I don't feel its wrong to say so. You'd like me to not to, but unfortunately as long as I stay within the rules, and I believe I do, that's just not going to happen.

As I said, if you say A you have to say B too and deleting the answer to a clearly insulting post, while even saying you agree to the insult in the first place, is not what one would expect.

Well if you feel like your constantly are being bullied by being deleted or what ever...

Not at all. Don't you start, too.

And I understand that your job requires you to pretend there is a line there, but please examine the flawed process with an open mind.

Edited to say that I am impressed and disappointed that you and perpete have sold a few people in this thread that there actually is a line. Very clever of perpete to get going with that 100 ... 110 ... 130 business. Your fictional line seems to have a shadowy life of its own.

Last edited by Mike Franks at 4/17/2016 1:17:47 PM