RotoRiot/Moos is Loos/huskerfan22/Cheezypuff

huskeraddict said:
I think as far as the others that are stirring up trouble go (Chaddy, Roto), they want to be banned so they can push the agenda that were just wiping out those who disagree, personally don't like, or protecting other members (Landlord). I'd say let them push their agenda in the Shed but not elsewhere. Don't martyr them.

Also we may need to start taking a look at opening up a dialogue as far as us mods answering questions in the Shed about what goes into discipline here at HB. I'm seeing a lot of talk about how people have warning levels higher than those who just got wiped out. I think Lance has done a great job of doing this.

Finally, I know I'm not a lead guy around here but let's not get caught up in people criticizing us. Obviously we know the other half of the story that those who know Polo, Butcher, and SW probably aren't getting. Stick by our guns because we really don't have anything to apologize for.
Click to expand...
I agree and people need to realize that someone can go from no warnings to being banned depending on the violation.

 
BIGREDIOWAN said:
Anyone know who Ben Kallenbach and Michael Ciaccio are? They are posting some stupid stuff on our facebook page and I'm about to delete their posts and ban them from our facebook account.
Click to expand...
I've lost track, honestly, but I think they're among the banned members.

Regardless though, if they are really causing trouble, then ban them there, too. Maybe leave the posts, though, no need to serve them up some "censorship!!!" complaint, too. If it's a couple of gripes, maybe don't even bother. They'll wear themselves out if they haven't done so already, I expect.

Although, if they've polluted the page with male half-nudes (which is what one of them has tweeted at us), that could probably go
default_laugh.png


 
Last edited by a moderator:
BIGREDIOWAN said:
Anyone know who Ben Kallenbach and Michael Ciaccio are? They are posting some stupid stuff on our facebook page and I'm about to delete their posts and ban them from our facebook account.
Click to expand...
Ben Kallenbach is RotoRiot. Micheal Ciaccio is Dr. Mantis Toboggan (who used to be huskermike84). Good job, BRI.
 
I'm going to write something up for the whole board tonight or tomorrow.

Only problem is I'm having problems logging on. Something with my internet. Only reason I'm on now is because I'm rebooting router.

What gets someone banned? I think it's simple, act as if you are face to face with someone, not as if your actions have no consequence because your sitting behind your computer. I will be happy to elaborate on a bit of I can get the Internet thing figured out

 
Thanks, Eric.

AR Husker Fan said:
By keeping the focus on Eric (and it may eventually include me, as well), our hope is that when we come through this there won't be any bad blood toward the Mods.
Click to expand...
Well, crap, I'm a moron. I forgot a little about this line. They can have their gripes, though. Anything bad would have been jumped on a lot worse. I'm content with their stance of "this is bullsh#t." I don't believe it's as effectively rabble-rousing a stance. Optimistically, their twitter circle will have a limited lifespan.

Addict responded too, so it may be currently down to knapp and Mav and BRI to be the good cops. BRI, have you ever played 'Good Cop' before IRL?
default_laugh.png


 
Last edited by a moderator:
zoogs said:
Thanks, Eric.

AR Husker Fan said:
By keeping the focus on Eric (and it may eventually include me, as well), our hope is that when we come through this there won't be any bad blood toward the Mods.
Click to expand...
Well, crap, I'm a moron. I forgot a little about this line. They can have their gripes, though. Anything bad would have been jumped on a lot worse. I'm content with their stance of "this is bullsh#t." I don't believe it's as effectively rabble-rousing a stance. Optimistically, their twitter circle will have a limited lifespan.

Addict responded too, so it may be currently down to knapp and Mav and BRI to be the good cops. BRI, have you ever played 'Good Cop' before IRL?
default_laugh.png
Click to expand...
I only responded because I know FakeID personally and he would ask me about it anyhow. Like I said, I haven't said anything shared here with him. I figured just stating that most mods don't have an answer because we really didn't have anything to do with this decision wouldn't be a bad thing to post. If I crossed a line in doing that, I do apologize. It's a little tough to see people get this up in arms about this though. I just don't understand why people can't comprehend that this goes beyond what is posted in the public eye and how much moderators do communicate with other members in ways other than a warning system. Lance, Mav, and Zoogs have an excellent rapport with the community. I, unfortunately, do not because I've been fairly unactive over the last couple years so I think them taking the moderator team reigns on this is a good idea.

I see some other sh#t went down. I went out with some friends tonight and could only check the emails as my phone was next to dead and I needed to be able to call an Uber for later
default_tongue.png


If people only knew how often Eric persuades us against banning members, I think this would change some opinions. Eric and AR don't get their kicks on throwing out productive members over a simple disagreement.

 
Sorry addict, attempt at levity there. I think you did and do a fine job. And I'd be very confident in you taking the moderator reigns more, on anything.

 
No issue with me. My lack of rapport and activity falls on my shoulders but I'm attempting to stay more in the loop.

P.S. I was at Landlord's favorite bar ever tonight, The Fat Toad!

 
I think there ultimately needs to be an official mea culpa on the topic of notices to the banned, and assurance things will be different in the future.

Without that, I don't see how the fervor dies down. There are too many reasonable posters (and FakeID is one of our best) who can ask, fairly, if there's a reason, why can't it be articulated to the bannees.

I know you feel differently on this, AR and Eric, and I hate disagreeing or even making an issue of it. But I think a brief outline informing each banned member blunts the brunt of reasonable folks' issue here, and doesn't mean we have to continue to engage in an email war. A few guys whining about getting the shaft is very different from their far too effective protestations of innocence.

 
zoogs said:
I think there ultimately needs to be an official mea culpa on the topic of notices to the banned, and assurance things will be different in the future.

Without that, I don't see how the fervor dies down. There are too many reasonable posters (and FakeID is one of our best) who can ask, fairly, if there's a reason, why can't it be articulated to the bannees.

I know you feel differently on this, AR and Eric, and I hate disagreeing or even making an issue of it. But I think a brief outline informing each banned member blunts the brunt of reasonable folks' issue here, and doesn't mean we have to continue to engage in an email war. A few guys whining about getting the shaft is very different from their far too effective protestations of innocence.
Click to expand...
Eric has drafted a message to the board that I've reviewed. I suspect it will be posted today or tomorrow. It won't go into all the details, but will outline broadly what happened, and that most of it transpired through the PM system, which helps explain why this happened with out the usual visual "tips" members see.
Regarding the banned members and responding to them directly - I simply see no good that will come of it. No matter what we tell them, they are going to disagree; that's evident from their first reaction when Eric tried, very civilly, to ask them to modify their behavior. Also, and as an attorney I can't stress how often this happens, no matter what we say to them, they will twist it to their own ends. They PM they released through RotoRiot is VERY truncated and slanted; they'll do the same with anything else we give them. What I've told clients who go into depositions or that have to testify is that when answering questions put to them by an opposing or hostile party, envision that opposing or hostile party pointing a gun at you. Now, envision your answers as bullets. Every time you give more information than is required, you just handed them a bullet for their gun. How often do you want to be shot?

In the end, this will blow over. We may lose some more members; I'm sure that there are a few more of their friends on here that may pull a beanman (by the way, Alex, thanks for handling that - excellent work). If we respond to the banned members, they will use that response to incite those people. We may lose a few that are not satisfied with the post we are going to make; they want all the details. What that really means is they want to judge whether the bans should have taken place. In the end, it's not their call. If they can't live with that, then they need to decide whether Huskerboard is for them.

 
Back
Top