- Joined
- Dec 27, 2001
- Messages
- 9,808
haha :lol:
Grim
Grim
haha :lol:
Grim
Three cheers for Grimster, hey you going to St Louis with the round one?I completely agree Mike. no different then any other forum, as a matter of fact, this forum is far supperior to the other RC forums on the net.......take it for what its worth..........
im not sure if your talking to me or not, but im not sure what you mean...........Three cheers for Grimster, hey you going to St Louis with the round one?I completely agree Mike. no different then any other forum, as a matter of fact, this forum is far supperior to the other RC forums on the net.......take it for what its worth..........
Being someone who has just read all of this and tried to see everything from an unbiased point of view, I don't think that KB is attacking anyones fortitude or ability to make a fair judgement. He is simply stating that there is an inconsistency that is seen if one looks at it that way, about how different people are delt with. I don't know the details of the whole thing and can only state an opinion based on what I have read thus far and I am a member of several forums and none of which have any rules against stting an opinion, therefore I find it just to say that if his ban was based on that it would be unfair. Also though, if it was based on something he said that may have been derogatory to someone then a ban would be in order, however I think 1 year is a little excessive. On a final note I read that it could have been based on a buisness decision because something may have been said to affect one's monetary standings, although it is business it has no business here. With that i am saying that if it had anything to do with someones ability to make money, then the person/s that supported that type of decision have no place among the people in this thread. I know i said that was it but one more thing. If it was something that occured outside of this forum that may have affected the decsion then that person needs to reconsider their ability to dictate rules and punishments and should consider handling it outside of the forum. Yes the mods are here to keep the forum kosher for everyone but they also must cosider that what they decide affect everyone. Like banning Mark, as he was a very helpful person from what I understand.Kevin if you think it looks bad for a moderator to actually have the courage to enforce the rules then so be it. It's a leadership trait that few have but many more should.
Joe,Kevin if you think it looks bad for a moderator to actually have the courage to enforce the rules then so be it. It's a leadership trait that few have but many more should.
Zach the facts surrounding Mark's suspension have not been accurately depicted in this thread. I've known Mark for awhile & yes he is a nice person but when you defy the moderator by starting a new thread to circumvent a locked thread you're clearly out of line. The moderators handled this matter appropriately & I bet that if you asked Mark today he would agree that he should have been banned.Being someone who has just read all of this and tried to see everything from an unbiased point of view, I don't think that KB is attacking anyones fortitude or ability to make a fair judgement. He is simply stating that there is an inconsistency that is seen if one looks at it that way, about how different people are delt with. I don't know the details of the whole thing and can only state an opinion based on what I have read thus far and I am a member of several forums and none of which have any rules against stting an opinion, therefore I find it just to say that if his ban was based on that it would be unfair. Also though, if it was based on something he said that may have been derogatory to someone then a ban would be in order, however I think 1 year is a little excessive. On a final note I read that it could have been based on a buisness decision because something may have been said to affect one's monetary standings, although it is business it has no business here. With that i am saying that if it had anything to do with someones ability to make money, then the person/s that supported that type of decision have no place among the people in this thread. I know i said that was it but one more thing. If it was something that occured outside of this forum that may have affected the decsion then that person needs to reconsider their ability to dictate rules and punishments and should consider handling it outside of the forum. Yes the mods are here to keep the forum kosher for everyone but they also must cosider that what they decide affect everyone. Like banning Mark, as he was a very helpful person from what I understand.Kevin if you think it looks bad for a moderator to actually have the courage to enforce the rules then so be it. It's a leadership trait that few have but many more should.
Just MY 2,
Zach
Then I would have to completely agree with the ban. However a year If that is the instance is imho a little excessive. Correct the full reasoning behind Mark's ban has in fact not been depicted, However if all he did was start a new thread to bypass another being locked then to me it would seem that one would have another agenda to impose such a strong punishment. Call it strongarming if you will. By this I am saying that it would seem that one is using there authority to effectively silence someone who is speaking out against something. That is what i would see a something being somewhat inconsitent. As I said however I do agree that he should have been punished but a year seems a little much.Zach the facts surrounding Mark's suspension have not been accurately depicted in this thread. I've known Mark for awhile & yes he is a nice person but when you defy the moderator by starting a new thread to circumvent a locked thread you're clearly out of line. The moderators handled this matter appropriately & I bet that if you asked Mark today he would agree that he should have been banned.Being someone who has just read all of this and tried to see everything from an unbiased point of view, I don't think that KB is attacking anyones fortitude or ability to make a fair judgement. He is simply stating that there is an inconsistency that is seen if one looks at it that way, about how different people are delt with. I don't know the details of the whole thing and can only state an opinion based on what I have read thus far and I am a member of several forums and none of which have any rules against stting an opinion, therefore I find it just to say that if his ban was based on that it would be unfair. Also though, if it was based on something he said that may have been derogatory to someone then a ban would be in order, however I think 1 year is a little excessive. On a final note I read that it could have been based on a buisness decision because something may have been said to affect one's monetary standings, although it is business it has no business here. With that i am saying that if it had anything to do with someones ability to make money, then the person/s that supported that type of decision have no place among the people in this thread. I know i said that was it but one more thing. If it was something that occured outside of this forum that may have affected the decsion then that person needs to reconsider their ability to dictate rules and punishments and should consider handling it outside of the forum. Yes the mods are here to keep the forum kosher for everyone but they also must cosider that what they decide affect everyone. Like banning Mark, as he was a very helpful person from what I understand.Kevin if you think it looks bad for a moderator to actually have the courage to enforce the rules then so be it. It's a leadership trait that few have but many more should.
Just MY 2,
Zach
Enter your email address to join: