So why exactly was MJ4H boxed?

[Barkeep49]

Chubby I think that's unfair. I think this is clearly a case of the mods once again reminding people not to disobey a decision of theirs, in this case MJ4H posting the twitter links. If there's one thing we know about Ben it's that he hates when people try and get around his decision.

[Barkeep49]

DOLA - Which, btw, I think is a really poor decision. I think the twitter links are absolutely a way of respecting the decision Ben made.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

Chubby I think that's unfair. I think this is clearly a case of the mods once again reminding people not to disobey a decision of theirs, in this case MJ4H posting the twitter links. If there's one thing we know about Ben it's that he hates when people try and get around his decision.

What's the decision that was disobeyed? If it was to not post pics, he complied.

I'd love to know what a coordinator can post big boobed pics (which I have nothing against) and it's perfectly ok in the cool pics thread.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I don't think you guys are comprehending what has been previously posted. Wade PM'd Ben. Ben deleted the thread and, I assume, PM'd MJ4H. MJ4H PM'd Ben back, didn't get an answer, then re-posted the thread. I do not believe there was any direct contact between MJ4H and any other mod but Ben, and other than wade, I'm not even sure any other mod *knew* anything about this situation until after it blew up. I can't speak for the rest, but I found out by reading this thread. I might be wrong, but I do not believe MJ4H responded to Ben's PM and copied any other mods. So, he was left to wait for Ben's response to his PM. He chose not to. And really, nothing on this board is so life or death that he couldn't have waited for a response, especially given that this occurred over the weekend.

But what I'm trying to figure out is what he did wrong by reposting the dynasty without the pictures? Why did he have to wait? It sounds like he complied with the ruling, said the pictures have been moved to his twitter, and he'll stick to poker from now on.

And the bigger question is if the dynasty can be restored by the mod without pictures, then why did it need to be wholesale deleted in the first place? Why couldn't the pictures have just been removed?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Chubby

You're right, anyone can act like an asshat and for doing so wade should be banned for violating that clause.

Ben decides who acts like an asshat. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that because he took action on the thread wade reported, he probably wouldn't consider wade to have acted like an asshat.

Ultimately, what you are asking for is that your or a group of member's collective opinions be used to enforce standards on the board. That's Ben's job, with a few of us here for him to bounce thoughts off on when he feels it is necessary. I think this place runs far smoother with him in charge than if we turned this into a pure democracy and took a poll when any questionable issue arose.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

But what I'm trying to figure out is what he did wrong by reposting the dynasty without the pictures? Why did he have to wait? It sounds like he complied with the ruling, said the pictures have been moved to his twitter, and he'll stick to poker from now on.

And the bigger question is if the dynasty can be restored by the mod without pictures, then why did it need to be wholesale deleted in the first place? Why couldn't the pictures have just been removed?

Someone already explained that Ben started to remove the pics, saw that it was going to take too much time, and he just deleted the thread and was going to come back to it later.

The problem with him reposting the thread with a link to the pics is that it appears, in any reasonable estimation, to be an attempt to circumvent the original reason the thread was deleted to begin with. And that's always been a big no-no around here. Ben saw what he did and that was his call on it.

If MJ4H knew the pictures were the problem, and he was so concerned about his dynasty because of the poker content, why would he even risk trying to include the pictures in any manner before getting the OK to do so? Why not just repost the poker content and wait for clarification about how, or if, he could include the pics in some way?

I gather that the original concern was that the thread was masquerading as a hot chix thread, and by his actions, MJ4H gave that concern credence by reposting the thread and making sure the pics were still accessible in some way. To me, that's the bottom line. It really has nothing to do with whether you agree with wade's initial decision to report or ben's decision to delete. What followed was why action was taken against MJ4H.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Ben decides who acts like an asshat. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that because he took action on the thread wade reported, he probably wouldn't consider wade to have acted like an asshat.

Ultimately, what you are asking for is that your or a group of member's collective opinions be used to enforce standards on the board. That's Ben's job, with a few of us here for him to bounce thoughts off on when he feels it is necessary. I think this place runs far smoother with him in charge than if we turned this into a pure democracy and took a poll when any questionable issue arose.

Skydog's trying to pull off a stern, quiet, decisive, court-of-last resort, never admit wrongdoing kind of schtick, and he can't do it because he's too emotional and gets rattled by anyone that disagrees with his decisions. If the decisions came across as emotionless, for the benefit of the board, etc, then it might be a different story.

I understand the philosophy behind it, if you have a decisive moderator who "stays above the fray", then there will be less bickering and complaints and shit storms, and that people will respect that authority. But as has been shown here time and time again here, it hasn't been pulled off.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

The problem with him reposting the thread with a link to the pics is that it appears, in any reasonable estimation, to be an attempt to circumvent the original reason the thread was deleted to begin with. And that's always been a big no-no around here.

I don't think the mods understand the distinction between trying to circumvent a rule and trying to comply with it.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

The problem with him reposting the thread with a link to the pics is that it appears, in any reasonable estimation, to be an attempt to circumvent the original reason the thread was deleted to begin with.

Actually, it seems like complying with the original reason the thread was deleted, but having a link instead of actually having them in this thread.

The fact that it seems to you that was an attempt to "cirumvent" is a problem with the moderation around here.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Someone already explained that Ben started to remove the pics, saw that it was going to take too much time, and he just deleted the thread and was going to come back to it later.

The problem with him reposting the thread with a link to the pics is that it appears, in any reasonable estimation, to be an attempt to circumvent the original reason the thread was deleted to begin with. And that's always been a big no-no around here. Ben saw what he did and that was his call on it.

If MJ4H knew the pictures were the problem, and he was so concerned about his dynasty because of the poker content, why would he even risk trying to include the pictures in any manner before getting the OK to do so? Why not just repost the poker content and wait for clarification about how, or if, he could include the pics in some way?

I gather that the original concern was that the thread was masquerading as a hot chix thread, and by his actions, MJ4H gave that concern credence by reposting the thread and making sure the pics were still accessible in some way. To me, that's the bottom line. It really has nothing to do with whether you agree with wade's initial decision to report or ben's decision to delete. What followed was why action was taken against MJ4H.

So the problem is that he mentioned where you can find pics on the internet? Or that he made these pictures accessible somehow on a place that has nothing to do with FOFC, and isn't even linked from FOFC? If the original problem is that the pictures are not supposed to be linked from FOFC, it seems like he's taken care of that.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't think the mods understand the distinction between trying to circumvent a rule and trying to comply with it.

Bingo... and more succint than my post .

[lordscarlet]

OK. I have avoided posting because I know that in the eyes of the detractors anytihng I have to say will be tainted. Having said that....

I understand the logic MJ4H is deploying for his "thread deleted but no response to the PM" outrage, even though I don't agree with it. But here is what I would like to know, for everyone defending him -- Obviously some people are talking to him. I want to know how much time MJ4H claims there was between his PM to Ben and the re-posting of the thread. The new thread was then deleted (if it's objectionable, I'm not sure why you would think someone would answer your PM before removing objectionable material). Then, after deleting the new thread, how long before MJ4H posted the post in the images thread? Which, if asshattery is going on, that is clearly going to be dealt with before the PM. I think the logic here was pretty sound from what we have heard (I know nothing more than what is in this thread).

1. Possibly objectionable material was reported on Friday
2. Material was reviewed and found to be objectionable
3. Ben attempted to edit out the objectionable material
4. #3 proved laborious, so he soft deleted the thread
5. MJ4H PM's Ben to request a resolution to keeping the poker thread
6. MJ4H re-posts the thread with links to the objectionable material. On FOFC the policy has ALWAYS been that linking to an objectionable image is just as bad as posting the image. You all know this, and I don't know why it's being glossed over.
7. New post deleted
8. MJ4H posts in Image thread with a, to use others words, asshat response regarding the deletion
9. MJ4H is boxed
10. This thread is created on Saturday

I don't know if I made it up, but I feel like someone said there were three days to answer the PM. That is clearly not the case, as the thread was deleted Friday and this thread was created Saturday. I would love for someone in contact with MJ4H to let us know what the timeline was. He is claiming there was plenty of time to respond, but it certainly doesn't seem like there was. In a situation like this, someone will always take action regarding the impatient asshattery before they address the reasoned PM that came before it. Ben can't spend the whole weekend working out the original thread when MJ4H has already disregarded the original deletion and begun to repost all of the stuff that was already deemed inappropriate.

I'm really not sure how people don't get this. I'm not going to sit here and say that every boxing/banning has been justified, or that some boxings haven't been warranted where they were not used. But this seems pretty cut and dry -- the content was deemed inappropriate and deleted. MJ4H expected a quick turnaround on the issue and when he didn't get it decided to be immature about it and repost the content. Even if he didn't understand the linking rules, he was STILL not boxed until he went further down the immature scale and posted a snide remark in the images thread. It seems to me that MJ4H was given a lot of leniency because he is an established, quality contributor to the board. Instead he continued to push further past the line until he was boxed.

I will reiterate (as new posts have been made while I was typing this)

Posting to a source that has content previously deemed objectionable has ALWAYS Been a boxable offense. This is nothing new. Even if MJ4H was trying to comply, this is a no-no on FOFC and always has been. From my estimation of this discussion (I never saw either thread) it doesn't seem like the twitter links were necessary to recreate the old thread. From what I understand (based on this thread) the twitter link was SOLELY to still give people access to the images. I apologize if I am wrong, but that is how I have read it.

[Passacaglia]

LS, reading over your numbered list, the only thing that jumps out to me is #6. It seems more like he just said the pics are on his twitter page, but didn't provide any links. As for timing, I don't know.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Are we even allowed to discuss what MJ4H might be saying to defend himself? Isn't that boxable?

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

LS, reading over your numbered list, the only thing that jumps out to me is #6. It seems more like he just said the pics are on his twitter page, but didn't provide any links. As for timing, I don't know.

Yeah, I don't know. It hasn't really been made clear what happened. The "for" people have said it linked to his page. Either I have tinted glasses, or the "against" side hasn't really explained what the situation was.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Are we even allowed to discuss what MJ4H might be saying to defend himself? Isn't that boxable?

I have no idea, but someone can feel free to PM me the answer to my question.

[ISiddiqui]

MJ4H re-posts the thread with links to the objectionable material.

No, he posted a link to his Twitter account and said there may be updates. AFAIK, saying you can see the pictures on his Twitter account (which would have to be linked again through twitpic) is FAR cry from links to objectionable material. FAR cry.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Yeah, I don't know. It hasn't really been made clear what happened. The "for" people have said it linked to his page. Either I have tinted glasses, or the "against" side hasn't really explained what the situation was.

I'm not sure it matters -- linking to his page is not even the same as linking to the pictures, since that page only links to the pictures.

[RedKingGold]

I support permabanning anyone who has posted in this thread.

[Ksyrup]

No, the point is if the thread was all about poker, there was no need for him to even attempt to include the pictures in any way before clearing it with Ben first, since he knew the pics were a problem. It doesn't matter whether his intentions were to comply with Ben's PM or circumvent it. He wasn't sure what Ben would allow and PM'd him with a question about it. That was fine and appropriate, IMO. Not waiting for a response is what caused the problem. I think most of the members around here know Ben well enough to know that the "it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission" mantra doesn't fit really well, particularly as it relates to something he's already acted on and put you on notice of. And that's essentially what MJ4H set himself up for by not waiting for Ben to respond to his PM.

I'm not trying to justify the decision or even tell you I agree with it, as much as give my thoughts for why the action was taken. I found out about this after most of you, actually. So I have no particular insight into this.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I'm not sure it matters -- linking to his page is not even the same as linking to the pictures, since that page only links to the pictures.

Exactly. I mean if I have twitpics to scantily clad women on my Twitter account and I link to my Twitter account about something else, say, will I be boxed for what's on my Twitter account? Seriously?

[molson]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

. Even if he didn't understand the linking rules, he was STILL not boxed until he went further down the immature scale and posted a snide remark in the images thread.

It's hillarious that this supposedly "easy-going mod philosophy" we hear so much about involves boxing people for making snide remarks.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

No, he posted a link to his Twitter account and said there may be updates. AFAIK, saying you can see the pictures on his Twitter account (which would have to be linked again through twitpic) is FAR cry from links to objectionable material. FAR cry.

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I'm not sure it matters -- linking to his page is not even the same as linking to the pictures, since that page only links to the pictures.

No, sorry, wrong answer. Saying you can go to the twitter link to see the pics is exactly what has historically not been allowed. I did not see the re-post, and I wish I had. I don't know how direct he was, or how much was implied. If he said, "you can see more about the poker and the chicks on my feed at hxxp://twitter.com/mypokerfeed" then that is clearly in violation of what is allowed here. If he said "poker updates can also be seen on my twitter feed" then I agree that it was heavy handed.

But "complying" by telling people where a link is to see the removed content has NEVER been OK on FOFC. That's all there is to it.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

No, the point is if the thread was all about poker, there was no need for him to even attempt to include the pictures in any way before clearing it with Ben first, since he knew the pics were a problem. It doesn't matter whether his intentions were to comply with Ben's PM or circumvent it. He wasn't sure what Ben would allow and PM'd him with a question about it. That was fine and appropriate, IMO. Not waiting for a response is what caused the problem. I think most of the members around here know Ben well enough to know that the "it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission" mantra doesn't fit really well, particularly as it relates to something he's already acted on and put you on notice of. And that's essentially what MJ4H set himself up for by not waiting for Ben to respond to his PM.

I'm not trying to justify the decision or even tell you I agree with it, as much as give my thoughts for why the action was taken. I found out about this after most of you, actually. So I have no particular insight into this.

That is insane. The impression I get is that he didn't get an answer about having his content brought back, so he just started doing it himself. Calling that "flying off the handle" seems like a deliberate attempt to make him look bad. Since the pictures were an issue, he told people where they can find them. At this point, it's simply no concern of FOFC moderation.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Exactly. I mean if I have twitpics to scantily clad women on my Twitter account and I link to my Twitter account about something else, say, will I be boxed for what's on my Twitter account? Seriously?

If those pics are a major component of what you just had a thread deleted for, I'd say that's a reasonable possibility.

Separately (aka while I'm posting anyway, not directed at Isiddiqui) even with FOFC I'm amazed at all this hooha over the loss of some boobie pics. If you're getting your semi-pron or even pseudo-pron supply from FOFC, you've got bigger issues than a missing thread I can assure you.

[JeeberD]

Having just got here and seeing Matt's thread, I gotta say I'm surprised that he didn't get boxed on the content of the thread alone. People have been boxed for less in the past (myself included). And while the first post in the dynasty may say that there are chick pics inside the spoilers, I don't see any such warning next to the rest of the spoilers. What if someone thought it was simply a poker thread, didn't see the first post, and opened up a spoiler at work? And most damning, IMO, is the link that Matt posted on the 10th when people were comment on a specific gif that he posted, and he hxxp-linked to a site that had the vid it came from, which included nudity. And rule #1:

1. No links to porn sites (hardcore or soft). Period. This includes hxxp links.

*HELP FOR NEW USERS WHO CAN'T POST* (and general posting guidelines) - Front Office Football Central

Don't get me wrong, I've disagreed with a lot of Ben's decisions in the past, but this one seems pretty much a slam dunk.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

No, he posted a link to his Twitter account and said there may be updates. AFAIK, saying you can see the pictures on his Twitter account (which would have to be linked again through twitpic) is FAR cry from links to objectionable material. FAR cry.

If you link to something that has been deemed objectionable, the rule around here has always been that you can't just make a post saying, "Hey guys, the porn/pirated copy of FOF2K10 is over on my personal website buried beneath 5 layers of security and I'll PM you the paswords, go check it out." You can't do that.

Again, I come back to the fact that MJ4H was so upset because of the underlying substantive poker stuff in that thread that got deleted. I agree with him on that. Then why was it so damn necessary to make sure people could, in any way, get to the pics if the poker content was of utmost importance?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

The reason MJ4H got boxed is he wasn't deferential nor obsequious enough when he was victim to what he felt was a heavy handed mod decision.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

No, sorry, wrong answer. Saying you can go to the twitter link to see the pics is exactly what has historically not been allowed. I did not see the re-post, and I wish I had. I don't know how direct he was, or how much was implied. If he said, "you can see more about the poker and the chicks on my feed at hxxp://twitter.com/mypokerfeed" then that is clearly in violation of what is allowed here. If he said "poker updates can also be seen on my twitter feed" then I agree that it was heavy handed.

But "complying" by telling people where a link is to see the removed content has NEVER been OK on FOFC. That's all there is to it.

No need to apologize. Anyway, I don't ever remember something like that getting anyone boxed, but I do remember FranklinNoble mentioning sportsdigs a billion times or whatever, and never getting boxed for that. Can you give some examples that show that this kind of thing has historically not been allowed?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

At this point, it's simply no concern of FOFC moderation.

Bullshit. The same logic would say that if you had a thread deleted for posting warez, outright porn, or some other objectionable content but came back & posted a link to where the same material could be found then that would be okay. And I'm pretty sure most of us are smart enough to realize that wouldn't fly any more than this did (and quite likely less).

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by JeeberD

Having just got here and seeing Matt's thread, I gotta say I'm surprised that he didn't get boxed on the content of the thread alone. People have been boxed for less in the past (myself included). And while the first post in the dynasty may say that there are chick pics inside the spoilers, I don't see any such warning next to the rest of the spoilers. What if someone thought it was simply a poker thread, didn't see the first post, and opened up a spoiler at work? And most damning, IMO, is the link that Matt posted on the 10th when people were comment on a specific gif that he posted, and he hxxp-linked to a site that had the vid it came from, which included nudity. And rule #1:



*HELP FOR NEW USERS WHO CAN'T POST* (and general posting guidelines) - Front Office Football Central

Don't get me wrong, I've disagreed with a lot of Ben's decisions in the past, but this one seems pretty much a slam dunk.

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - The thread for images so cool that they belong in this thread

reconcile

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If those pics are a major component of what you just had a thread deleted for, I'd say that's a reasonable possibility.

Separately (aka while I'm posting anyway, not directed at Isiddiqui) even with FOFC I'm amazed at all this hooha over the loss of some boobie pics. If you're getting your semi-pron or even pseudo-pron supply from FOFC, you've got bigger issues than a missing thread I can assure you.

I don't care if I never see the pics again. Honestly I had most of them already. However, I feel the way this has been handled to be just bad and as I mentioned somewhere before, am confused why this was even an issue.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by JeeberD

Having just got here and seeing Matt's thread, I gotta say I'm surprised that he didn't get boxed on the content of the thread alone. People have been boxed for less in the past (myself included). And while the first post in the dynasty may say that there are chick pics inside the spoilers, I don't see any such warning next to the rest of the spoilers. What if someone thought it was simply a poker thread, didn't see the first post, and opened up a spoiler at work? And most damning, IMO, is the link that Matt posted on the 10th when people were comment on a specific gif that he posted, and he hxxp-linked to a site that had the vid it came from, which included nudity. And rule #1:



*HELP FOR NEW USERS WHO CAN'T POST* (and general posting guidelines) - Front Office Football Central

Don't get me wrong, I've disagreed with a lot of Ben's decisions in the past, but this one seems pretty much a slam dunk.

Personally, if that had happened, I probably would have been fine with it. But this thread is like an onion.

[molson]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

But "complying" by telling people where a link is to see the removed content has NEVER been OK on FOFC. That's all there is to it.

It's OK to post twitter links that contain objectionable material, but not OK to post twitter links that contain objectionable material if they've been previously been deemed by a moderater here to be objectional.

If thems' the rules, thems' the rules, but let's not pretend that's anything but a personal thing - mods getting their panties in a bunch over pictures they don't like that are NOT on FOFC, and NOT subject to work filters. They only act being punished is defiance (whether or not the intent is to defy).

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

If you link to something that has been deemed objectionable, the rule around here has always been that you can't just make a post saying, "Hey guys, the porn/pirated copy of FOF2K10 is over on my personal website buried beneath 5 layers of security and I'll PM you the paswords, go check it out." You can't do that.

You realize he wasn't boxed for that action, right? He was boxed for a comment he made in an image thread, which was incredibly tame comment considering all of the crap we've said here (especially check out the politics threads).

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

That is insane. The impression I get is that he didn't get an answer about having his content brought back, so he just started doing it himself. Calling that "flying off the handle" seems like a deliberate attempt to make him look bad. Since the pictures were an issue, he told people where they can find them. At this point, it's simply no concern of FOFC moderation.

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

The reason MJ4H got boxed is he wasn't deferential nor obsequious enough when he was victim to what he felt was a heavy handed mod decision.

Do we know this? Or was it simply because he reposted a thread that was deleted without waiting for a response from Ben regarding his request? I am STILL waiting to hear how long the time was between MJ4H's request to edit the thread and re-posting the thread that was deleted. Based on previous boxings I'm guessing this is the issue. I know everyone likes to think these decisions are all personal, but reposting a deleted thread with information on how to get somewhere that had the objecitonable content is likely the reason for the boxing.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Bullshit. The same logic would say that if you had a thread deleted for posting warez, outright porn, or some other objectionable content but came back & posted a link to where the same material could be found then that would be okay. And I'm pretty sure most of us are smart enough to realize that wouldn't fly any more than this did (and quite likely less).

I'm positive someone has posted a link to google before.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Personally, if that had happened, I probably would have been fine with it. But this thread is like an onion.

Right that's the thing, as we keep hearing he wasn't boxed for the content. He got boxed for a snide remark that questioned a mod.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

That is insane. The impression I get is that he didn't get an answer about having his content brought back, so he just started doing it himself. Calling that "flying off the handle" seems like a deliberate attempt to make him look bad. Since the pictures were an issue, he told people where they can find them. At this point, it's simply no concern of FOFC moderation.

I based my "flying off the handle" comment on the tone of the one twitter account post I read here (before it was deleted), and the fact that he's now decided to pack his virutal bags and leave. Yeah, I'd call that flying off the handle when a mod has taken action you don't agree with and you've put yourself in a bad situation by not waiting for a response to your question. The very fact that he PM'd Ben back with a question about how he could fix the problem demonstrates that he knew he should have waited for an answer. And while I'm not sure of the exact timing, it certainly looks like this all happened over a matter of hours. Since it was the weekend, it's not unreasonable for Ben (not the mods, since Ben was the only one involved in this) to be away from the board for a good bit of time.

This is a message board, not a matter of great importance, let alone life and death.

[molson]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

I know everyone likes to think these decisions are all personal, but reposting a deleted thread with information on how to get somewhere that had the objecitonable content is likely the reason for the boxing.

That, by definition is a personal decision, becaue it's something that has nothing to do with this board, but other, personal factors.

He told them where people can get the material SOMEWHERE ELSE

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I'm positive someone has posted a link to google before.

Ban the fuckers!

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by molson

Right that's the thing, as we keep hearing he wasn't boxed for the content. He got boxed for a snide remark that questioned a mod.

Huh? He got boxed for posting an indirect link to something he linked to in a thread that got deleted.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by molson

Right that's the thing, as we keep hearing he wasn't boxed for the content. He got boxed for a snide remark that questioned a mod.

Damn. The gestapo has nothing on some of the mods around here apparently.




*By the way, I'm not saying that you are actual Nazis. Just though I should clarify that.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Huh? He got boxed for posting an indirect link to something he linked to in a thread that got deleted.

He did? Says who? We still don't have a definitive answer now do we?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Huh? He got boxed for posting an indirect link to something he linked to in a thread that got deleted.

He actually got boxed for a snide comment in an image thread.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by molson

It's OK to post twitter links that contain objectionable material, but not OK to post twitter links that contain objectionable material if they've been previously been deemed by a moderater here to be objectional.

If thems' the rules, thems' the rules, but let's not pretend that's anything but a personal thing - mods getting their panties in a bunch over pictures they don't like that are NOT on FOFC, and NOT subject to work filters. They only act being punished is defiance (whether or not the intent is to defy).

I am not a mod, but that seems like the case. Twitter is twitter and links are links, you can't always control them. But if you clearly are giving someone an alternate route to soemthing already deleted, then, eys, I think that is a perfectly reasonable way to handle things. Clearly some people don't agree. I think really the case is that the mods are reasonable about not trolling every link to check for objecitonable content and only boxign for those that are with the "intent to defy."

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You realize he wasn't boxed for that action, right? He was boxed for a comment he made in an image thread, which was incredibly tame comment considering all of the crap we've said here (especially check out the politics threads).

We don't know that. MJ4H says that it was "a minute after the image post" but the image post was a minute after deletion of the re-post -- perhaps it takes more than 3 secs to both delete a thread and box somoene.

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I based my "flying off the handle" comment on the tone of the one twitter account post I read here (before it was deleted), and the fact that he's now decided to pack his virutal bags and leave. Yeah, I'd call that flying off the handle when a mod has taken action you don't agree with and you've put yourself in a bad situation by not waiting for a response to your question. The very fact that he PM'd Ben back with a question about how he could fix the problem demonstrates that he knew he should have waited for an answer. And while I'm not sure of the exact timing, it certainly looks like this all happened over a matter of hours. Since it was the weekend, it's not unreasonable for Ben (not the mods, since Ben was the only one involved in this) to be away from the board for a good bit of time.

This is a message board, not a matter of great importance, let alone life and death.

But then why was he insta-boxed for a snide remark? Who would box him for that if not Ben? Meaning he was online, or at least could see why he made a post like that.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Huh? He got boxed for posting an indirect link to something he linked to in a thread that got deleted.

That not what lordscarlet said above. (He wasn't boxed until the snide remark)

[JeeberD]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - The thread for images so cool that they belong in this thread

reconcile

Did you see the pics in that thread? They were way different than that ScarJo pic.

But all I'm trying to say is that someone who has been around as long as Matt has should have known better.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I based my "flying off the handle" comment on the tone of the one twitter account post I read here (before it was deleted), and the fact that he's now decided to pack his virutal bags and leave. Yeah, I'd call that flying off the handle when a mod has taken action you don't agree with and you've put yourself in a bad situation by not waiting for a response to your question. The very fact that he PM'd Ben back with a question about how he could fix the problem demonstrates that he knew he should have waited for an answer. And while I'm not sure of the exact timing, it certainly looks like this all happened over a matter of hours. Since it was the weekend, it's not unreasonable for Ben (not the mods, since Ben was the only one involved in this) to be away from the board for a good bit of time.

This is a message board, not a matter of great importance, let alone life and death.

Right, but you used that term to talk about the actions he made before he was boxed. I'll grant you that he flew off the handle after he was boxed, but you're using that to paint him as doing some crazy things which led to him being boxed. And again, I don't know the timeframe, but my guess is that since he didn't get a response, and didn't expect one, he figured he might as well just repost it himself, rather than wait around for Ben to do it, since that might be a while.

But yeah, not a matter of life and death -- I expect zero casualties.