Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
I fail to see how this is new ermmI also vote that the OTF and all of it's regular visitors are quarentined, so that the stupid doesn't spread to the rest of the forums.
I never said that is was new, I'm reiterating previous suggestions which have not been acted upon.
And btw, it's spelled quarantined...I fear the "stupid" may have already spread. 🙄
Originally posted by Strangelove
I know this might seem cruel, but should non-global mods who don't do their job within that sphere still be mods?I bring this up because there are several areas under the control of RoguePw25, and he's rarely been on lately, especially the TV Talk Forum.
Management Transparancy
My thread on a friend of mine being banned as a sock when he was not sharing an i.p. was closed with no answers. I have to ask why close it if the moderation had any hard evidence to support their actions like matching i.p.s or my friend Bob was on a proxy. They didn't have anything like this.
"Evidence needed to ban someone as a sock?
I have been asked to start this thread by my friend Bob. Who was recently banned from this forum as a "Sock", I work with computers and am aware sock checkers can detect proxy servers. Bob was not using a proxy. Moderators please check my i.p. and you will see I am not a sock or on a proxy either. My friend Bob also posted from an i.p. that was not on your records. He was using a London i.p. I am not. My i.p. is not a London i.p. however. Bob asked me to post this because I am one of his friends who live 60 miles from London. I would like to ask on Bobs behalf why you banned him as a sock. His account was "Alt Account". An amusing joke. Your sock checker will show you I am not a sock as it did him, so where was your evidence?
Captain Rex did the banning, so Captain Rex on Bobs behalf I am mainly asking you.
What evidence did you have?
If you're honest, you'll admit you had none!"
I understand why you might not want transparancy about this. It shows abuse of mod powers based on opinon.
"I think you're a sock therefore I shall ban you".
Not really very proffessional.
I can see why the thread might be closed as well, it shows a lack of being prepared to take criticism in public or say We had no proof
No, that simply means that nobody is on.
I stand by my decision. The sock checker does not need to read positive for a person to be a sock, after all. It can be based off of many, many things, such as suspicious name, suspicious behavior, and suspicious attitude that all mirrored another member, to name a few.
Originally posted by Captain REX
No, that simply means that nobody is on.I stand by my decision. The sock checker does not need to read positive for a person to be a sock, after all. It can be based off of many, many things, such as suspicious name, suspicious behavior, and suspicious attitude that all mirrored another member, to name a few.
So you can be banned based on the name you choose and your personality? What your saying is supposition is enough? I see.
Originally posted by Captain REX
No, that simply means that nobody is on.I stand by my decision. The sock checker does not need to read positive for a person to be a sock, after all. It can be based off of many, many things, such as suspicious name, suspicious behavior, and suspicious attitude that all mirrored another member, to name a few.