Recommend
16 
 Thumb up
 Hide
264 Posts
[1]  Prev «  3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7  Next »  [11] | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Complaint Department

Subject: The BJ Lillo Memorial Thread rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: complaint [+] constant_state_of_purge [+] geekletion [+] [View All]
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Let me understand this correctly. BJ knew the rules, broke the rules (for what post, I've no earthly idea), then went even further and broke them more by creating posting from (edited because I had this wrong) a second account. And this is BGG's fault?

The moderation in RSP has been conforming to the "normal" BGG moderation for what, a year now? Over that period, I've been suspended, MGK's been suspended, others from both sides have been suspended, but there's supposedly a bias?

I'll miss BJ's participation and wouldn't mind it if this incident caused BGG to do a bit of a rethink, but seriously? He knowingly did stuff that broke the rules, but this is the fault of the moderation approach and not his actions? What happened to taking responsibility for your actions?
30 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David C
United States
Aurora
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
perfalbion wrote:
What happened to taking responsibility for your actions?


I'm a liberal.

(someone had to fill the void)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Fwing wrote:
DWTripp wrote:
Well, Fwing... according to Matthew passive/aggressive flames or attacks are actionable offenses. Your comment seemed like a passive/aggressive reference to the weakest link being eliminated. Weak Link implies defective.

"Seems" and "implies"? Pretty thin.

What really hurts is that he passed right over my "at next BGG.CON, each of us here gets one free shot at punching Brian & BJ in the nuts for being so goddamn stupid" line to call your post a personal attack, even though it was neither personal nor an attack!

For a guy who's so sensitive to human suffering that he was able to detect Randy's attack on Moshe despite neither Randy nor Moshe realizing it was an attack, I have to wonder... was he hurting my feelings on purpose? Dammit, how do I flag the post he didn't make!?

joebelanger wrote:
MWChapel wrote:
And what we are left with is the Feel the Love people. *Shivers*

Don't EVER say that!

Fun bunch. The only automated please-delete-your-post warning I've ever received was from using the word idiot in one of their threads.
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tony Chen
Taiwan
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Quote:
The purpose of the rule is that posting suspensions are useless if there is no penalty for just making a new account to get around them.
I dispute that. There is value in posting with the original account.

If we are going to adhere to rules, what rules dictate which threads get buried in the "complaints forum" and which don't? All threads mods don't want the users to see? You should make a rule for that: all threads that is inconvenient for bgg to let people know/talk about shall be moved to a hidden forum.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew1365 wrote:
You mean, you weren't just suspended without warning? You were offered the opportunity to delete a post? Congrats. An exception was made for you!

Exception!? Everyone who makes 3000 posts without breaking the rules gets a warning the first time. I thought you knew that--oh.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
perfalbion wrote:
BJ knew the rules, broke the rules (for what post, I've no earthly idea)


He made some comment about Ireland being uncivilized, which is funny if you understand that his family is Irish. For this he got suspended for thirty days.


Which means he'd racked up a good number of suspensions before (which I knew).

But so what? If he didn't agree with the suspension, GeekMail is around and available and the right way to complain. All the way up the chain to Aldie if you like. I've been suspended over some posts that I'd say were questionable, particularly when those posts responded to posts where I was mentioned in a more than a bit personal and insulting way (but those posts didn't end up in a suspension).

BJ knew the game. The fact that he decided that the rules on multiple accounts didn't apply to him doesn't change things one bit.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
They call me....
United States
Riverside
California
flag msg tools
Games? People still play games??
badge
Specious arguments are not proof of trollish intent.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mrspank wrote:
Sorry, BJ. I did enjoy reading your stuff even if I disagreed with virtually all of it.

As a side note, I stopped donating money to BGG after the site starting banning people. That was in '07 with Barnes.


Interesting. I trebled my contributions once the bans began. I also like to knit guillotines in my spare time, as I watch the right-wingers fall like flies off a Shell No Pestâ„¢ Strip.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
Ken, if you're going to fill this place with so much hatred toward others, the least you could do is wear a misanthropist geekbadge like mine.


Please explain how suggesting that how my posts that say nothing more than "the rules are pretty clear and if someone knowingly breaks them then it's silly to blame the rules for the action that the individual took" is hatred.

I don't hate BJ - never did. But he did what he did when he knew what the consequences were. Blaming Matt or anyone else strikes me as ignoring the basic facts.

For the record - I moderate on a number of other sites and if this were to occur there, the results would be, quite literally, identical. In fact, one of those sites will automatically suspend accounts that are suspected duplicates and require moderators to override the system because that's a violation of site policy.

Don't want to get banned? Don't break the rules that you know exist. Seems pretty simple, really.
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
I am proud to have opposed those who describe all who oppose them as "Tender Flowers" and "Special Snowflakes".
badge
Check out Stately Play for news and reviews of games worth thinking about.
Avatar
mbmb
Perhaps we should let all perma-banned owners of a "Christian" microbadge return on Easter, thereby showing such disdain for their beliefs while doing them a favor that claims of bias can be heard from all sides.

I'm checking to see whether RSP content can get a thread moved from complaints to RSP, or whether the hierarchy is strict.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
perfalbion wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:
Ken, if you're going to fill this place with so much hatred toward others, the least you could do is wear a misanthropist geekbadge like mine.


Please explain how suggesting that how my posts that say nothing more than "the rules are pretty clear and if someone knowingly breaks them then it's silly to blame the rules for the action that the individual took" is hatred.

I don't hate BJ - never did. But he did what he did when he knew what the consequences were. Blaming Matt or anyone else strikes me as ignoring the basic facts.

For the record - I moderate on a number of other sites and if this were to occur there, the results would be, quite literally, identical. In fact, one of those sites will automatically suspend accounts that are suspected duplicates and require moderators to override the system because that's a violation of site policy.

Don't want to get banned? Don't break the rules that you know exist. Seems pretty simple, really.


Ken, I posted this in another thread, reprinting here:

Bears mentioning again, only because I keep seeing this canard repeated by folks--he did not use his sockpuppet to get around his suspension. It wasn't used to say anything about his suspension, he wasn't complaining, and the "sock puppet" wasn't created in response to a suspension. He created the sock puppet a long time ago as a satire of a particularly insufferable poster. He posted something with that long-standing sock puppet as a joke in the spirit of satire he's always used with that account. He didn't ever pretend the account wasn't his, and he never tried to use it to circumvent the rules banning him from his original account.

So yes, by the letter of the law ("thou shalt not use another account to post while suspended") he broke a rule. However, the spirit of the rule ("we don't want people being punished and then popping up two minutes later as 'sameusername2' to continue the problem") was not broken at all.

If you're confusing him with Koldfoot, you should clarify and correct your post. If you're being deliberately disingenuous I think that's kind of lousy and disrespectful to the situation.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
I am proud to have opposed those who describe all who oppose them as "Tender Flowers" and "Special Snowflakes".
badge
Check out Stately Play for news and reviews of games worth thinking about.
Avatar
mbmb
Drew1365 wrote:

My apologies. When I read your posts, I hear the "Ken Voice" in my head.


Michael Keaton?

Does it recommend the Groovy Formal collection?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
If you're confusing him with Koldfoot, you should clarify and correct your post. If you're being deliberately disingenuous I think that's kind of lousy and disrespectful to the situation.


I'm being neither disingenuous nor disrespectful, nor do the circumstances that you cited really change the situation much. I was not aware of the use of the account in question, but it doesn't alter the fact that he was breaking the rules of the site.

But I'm certain my experience moderating other sites colors my perception.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John So-And-So
United States
Fresno
California
flag msg tools
badge
You and the Cap'n make it hap'n
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Octavian wrote:

I can only think of two people total who fall under this category: BJ, and Koldfoot, who did the same thing last night.


Hey matthew. I posted under a sock puppet when I was suspended (this was years ago but I bet you remember - I needed to moderate a werewolf game I was running).

I didn't get banned. I got a warning and the sock puppet got suspended. What up? I know you are fair and equitable in everything you do.
17 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John So-And-So
United States
Fresno
California
flag msg tools
badge
You and the Cap'n make it hap'n
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
djgutierrez77 wrote:

For that matter, I am not a big Koldfoot fan but I would say his case falls in a similar gray area. He was upset and wanted to know what happened. I think a geekmail letting him know that using a sock puppet even just to ask why the original account was suspended is against the rule, and asking him to delete the post and the sock puppet account would have been more than sufficient.


That's funny, that's exactly what I got about 2-3 years ago. I deleted the sock and everyone went home happy. I mean, I know I'm one of RSP's favorite sons, so no wonder I got the special treatment.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
perfalbion wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:
If you're confusing him with Koldfoot, you should clarify and correct your post. If you're being deliberately disingenuous I think that's kind of lousy and disrespectful to the situation.


I'm being neither disingenuous nor disrespectful, nor do the circumstances that you cited really change the situation much. I was not aware of the use of the account in question, but it doesn't alter the fact that he was breaking the rules of the site.

But I'm certain my experience moderating other sites colors my perception.


You've implied that he used a sock puppet to evade moderation. He did no such thing. He used a satirical account to post something satirical, totally separate from his primary account suspension. If he hadn't openly admitted it was his satirical account Matthew wouldn't have even known, because as I may have mentioned he didn't say anything about BJ Lillo, suspensions, or the moderators.

I see you intend to stick to your guns, but I thought someone should post the actual fact of what happened instead of your incorrect conjecture.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Bellevue
NE
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
Semantics. The point of a ban is to prevent a specific person from being able to post. It matters not that he had satirical intent, just that he posted again after being given a time out. You're welcome to your opinion, but it's simple cause and effect. You find a way to post after a ban, then you get the indefinite ban due to evasion. That's the point you don't seem to get. You want Octavian to police intent. Impossible to do. Even those with malicious intent will just plead ignorance or bullshit their way out of a ban. You can't just say "I'm sorry, I didn't know I couldn't do that" and get away with it. Anyone that honestly believes that BJ wasn't aware of the consequences of his actions is full of shit.

If you want to pester the Admins about their interpretation of the word "evade", then that's a different subject, and one that can be more rationally argued than what's taking place here.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
You've implied that he used a sock puppet to evade moderation.


I'll be happy to say that I said he created a new account, which apparently is wrong. The fact that the account was old doesn't change the fact that there's a rule that if your account is suspended and you post on an alternate account, that's an infraction that results in indefinite suspension doesn't change, though.

Quote:
I see you intend to stick to your guns, but I thought someone should post the actual fact of what happened instead of your incorrect conjecture.


Facts are good. Doesn't change the fact that, regardless of motivation, it's against the rules.

And while motivation does matter and I hope that Aldie or someone in the "great scheme of things" takes that into consideration, if a moderator didn't follow the rules that stood, there would be little reason to have them.

Partly, this is due to BGG's approach to content. On many forums, a post that was flagged by members or otherwise deemed inappropriate would be hidden from view, as would lots of posts that quoted it and moderators would have more leeway to handle things in private. BGG's stance is to leave the content visible rather than appear to be censoring content, which means the rules needs to be the rules or you're effectively declaring open season.

I appreciate that you don't agree with me. I hope you'll appreciate that I'm not likely to come around to agree with you.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
hskrfn822 wrote:
Semantics. The point of a ban is to prevent a specific person from being able to post. It matters not that he had satirical intent, just that he posted again after being given a time out. You're welcome to your opinion, but it's simple cause and effect. You find a way to post after a ban, then you get the indefinite ban due to evasion. That's the point you don't seem to get. You want Octavian to police intent. Impossible to do. Even those with malicious intent will just plead ignorance or bullshit their way out of a ban. You can't just say "I'm sorry, I didn't know I couldn't do that" and get away with it. Anyone that honestly believes that BJ wasn't aware of the consequences of his actions is full of shit.


Again, that account existed long before BJ was suspended and had nothing to do with his suspension.

Also, little Matthew polices intent all the fucking time. It's how he's chosen to do his job. He decides if someone was over the line or not based on his own personal feelings. (Sometimes he claims he has a group of RSPers review a post before deciding. Other times he denies that happens.) The moderation here is arbitrarily applied across the board. I'm just asking Matt to hitch up his skirt, grab his balls, and admit he got his arbitrary decision wrong this time rather than pretending that he lives by the letter of the rules every day.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
djgutierrez77 wrote:
If he hadn't openly admitted it was his satirical account Matthew wouldn't have even known, because as I may have mentioned he didn't say anything about BJ Lillo, suspensions, or the moderators.

Wait, are we talking about the same account!? The one whose "spirit of satire he always used" had a total posting history of three lines, the final ban-triggering one being "Openness and honesty are not included in the moderation process" ? OK, that may not exactly, technically mention the moderators, but... it is effectively saying the moderators do not operate openly & honestly. That was supposed to be satire from a guy who's abandoned the site?
15 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kuhrusty wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:
If he hadn't openly admitted it was his satirical account Matthew wouldn't have even known, because as I may have mentioned he didn't say anything about BJ Lillo, suspensions, or the moderators.

Wait, are we talking about the same account!? The one whose "spirit of satire he always used" had a total posting history of three lines, the final ban-triggering one being "Openness and honesty are not included in the moderation process" ? OK, that may not exactly, technically mention the moderators, but... it is effectively saying the moderators do not operate openly & honestly. That was supposed to be satire from a guy who's abandoned the site?


Yup.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
Again, that account existed long before BJ was suspended and had nothing to do with his suspension.


Doesn't matter vis a vis the rule that's in question.

Quote:
Also, little Matthew polices intent all the fucking time.


We disagree. Matthew doesn't, for example, take action against "trolling." Nor does he take action against RSP posts that are incendiary in nature but not specifically insults or attacks against members. Nor does everything that could be construed as a personal attack result in action. Nor does he ignore posts that are questionable in terms of whether they were attacks or not.

You're assigning intent to the admins. I don't think that to be the case. Nor do I think our particular exchange is producing anything that's really interesting, new, or likely to change anyone's mind. I hope you'll pardon me if I don't reply to future posts. I get that we disagree. I'll respectfully retain the right to hold my position regardless of said disagreement.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Bellevue
NE
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
hskrfn822 wrote:
Semantics. The point of a ban is to prevent a specific person from being able to post. It matters not that he had satirical intent, just that he posted again after being given a time out. You're welcome to your opinion, but it's simple cause and effect. You find a way to post after a ban, then you get the indefinite ban due to evasion. That's the point you don't seem to get. You want Octavian to police intent. Impossible to do. Even those with malicious intent will just plead ignorance or bullshit their way out of a ban. You can't just say "I'm sorry, I didn't know I couldn't do that" and get away with it. Anyone that honestly believes that BJ wasn't aware of the consequences of his actions is full of shit.


Again, that account existed long before BJ was suspended and had nothing to do with his suspension.

Also, little Matthew polices intent all the fucking time. It's how he's chosen to do his job. He decides if someone was over the line or not based on his own personal feelings. (Sometimes he claims he has a group of RSPers review a post before deciding. Other times he denies that happens.) The moderation here is arbitrarily applied across the board. I'm just asking Matt to hitch up his skirt, grab his balls, and admit he got his arbitrary decision wrong this time rather than pretending that he lives by the letter of the rules every day.


It doesn't matter when the account was created, what it was created for or that he used it during another ban for its intended use. I have 3 other accounts I've created for satirical reasons. If I post using my hskrfn822 account and get a ban, I cannot use ANY other account. It's supposed to be a disciplinary action, a time out to think about what you've done and clear your head. If you post with ANY account, you risk a permaban.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew M
United States
New Haven
Connecticut
flag msg tools
admin
8/8 FREE, PROTECTED
badge
513ers Assemble!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
CapAp wrote:
Octavian wrote:

I can only think of two people total who fall under this category: BJ, and Koldfoot, who did the same thing last night.


Hey matthew. I posted under a sock puppet when I was suspended (this was years ago but I bet you remember - I needed to moderate a werewolf game I was running).


No, I don't remember. If it was years ago the rule may not have been in place at the time. Please repost the full content of the geekmail here so we're all on the same page as far as context and the date.

-MMM
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
[q="perfalbion"]


We disagree. Matthew doesn't, for example, take action against "trolling." (/q]

Perhaps not. However, it's supposed to be a suspension-worthy offense to accuse someone of "trolling," and that happens all the time without response from the moderator.

Quote:
Nor does he take action against RSP posts that are incendiary in nature but not specifically insults or attacks against members.


Bullshit. He picks and chooses what posts he considers to be specifically "attacks." Sometimes it's enough to work around the rule by making it non-specific--the "anyone who thinks that [that being what you just said] is a fucking moron" posts that go mostly unpunished, except when Matt decides it's over one of his invisible, constantly shifting lines.

Quote:
Nor does everything that could be construed as a personal attack result in action.


Which gives the lie to your claim that he doesn't police intent. Sometimes he decides the intent was an attack, sometimes he decides it wasn't. Arbitrarily, with no supervision.

Quote:
Nor does he ignore posts that are questionable in terms of whether they were attacks or not.


Um....yes he does. You just said that in the line preceding this one.

Quote:
I'll respectfully retain the right to hold my position regardless of said disagreement.


I'll pardon you, on the off chance you turn out to be one of my parents' neighbors or something. You live in the same town, anyway.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Bellevue
NE
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
hskrfn822 wrote:
Semantics. The point of a ban is to prevent a specific person from being able to post. It matters not that he had satirical intent, just that he posted again after being given a time out. You're welcome to your opinion, but it's simple cause and effect. You find a way to post after a ban, then you get the indefinite ban due to evasion. That's the point you don't seem to get. You want Octavian to police intent. Impossible to do. Even those with malicious intent will just plead ignorance or bullshit their way out of a ban. You can't just say "I'm sorry, I didn't know I couldn't do that" and get away with it. Anyone that honestly believes that BJ wasn't aware of the consequences of his actions is full of shit.


Again, that account existed long before BJ was suspended and had nothing to do with his suspension.

Also, little Matthew polices intent all the fucking time. It's how he's chosen to do his job. He decides if someone was over the line or not based on his own personal feelings. (Sometimes he claims he has a group of RSPers review a post before deciding. Other times he denies that happens.) The moderation here is arbitrarily applied across the board. I'm just asking Matt to hitch up his skirt, grab his balls, and admit he got his arbitrary decision wrong this time rather than pretending that he lives by the letter of the rules every day.


Most people when they want to make a rational argument, choose to do so by giving reputable evidence that supports your claim. How can you possibly know what Matthew's intent was when you're not him?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
[1]  Prev «  3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7  Next »  [11] |