Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/1/09 03:59 AM, Malachy wrote:

To somehow say that somebody is taking your post personally is just not true. In fact, we probably have no opinion on you at all. It would be nice if I knew every single user personally and was able to get to know everyone, but with about 500 or so people posting on the BBS every day on a regular basis, it's difficult to create very many relationships with users, especially when half of your time is cleaning up messes from people who really don't frequent the site at all.

Yes but some of us have felt personally threatened by certain mods by their continual negative attitudes toward us. I have on occasion heard a mod give me a negative comment to me that basically had to do with them not liking my topics despite the fact i broke no rules and people generally liked my topics. It seems as if the oldest mods are being the most offensive and are picking and choosing who they do and do not like. If i make bad topics then that's my problem if i get no responses. I don't need to be told my topics are subpar.

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1065 361/1

In this topic the mods i noticed posted things that were neither helpful or i felt personally attacking. As you can see when they make a immature post everyone jumps on the bandwagon and others decide it's ok to act like a ass. Mods set the example that other users follow. If they are immature then that gives others the ok to be immature. And you have to admit sometimes mods make a topic that is clearly stupid and looks exactly like spam. A short post with a pic. Yet they get away with it.

To somehow say that somebody is taking your post personally is just not true. In fact, we probably have no opinion on you at all. It would be nice if I knew every single user personally and was able to get to know everyone, but with about 500 or so people posting on the BBS every day on a regular basis, it's difficult to create very many relationships with users, especially when half of your time is cleaning up messes from people who really don't frequent the site at all.

People just can't post anything short or a little stupid in general any more without one of the dozen or so mods lurking around the forum noticing (well that's the case with me anyway). I rarely go to this forum because of this and that's why most NGers probably don't know me.

Last time I got banned for making a useless comment, but I realized the second after posting that I should have added a few more words to make my point clearer, thereby avoiding a 3 day ban. Feels a little harsh when I see people getting away with a lot worse.

I don't know, maybe if mods know certain users, they tend not to ban them. If two people did basically the same offense, one might get off scott free just because the mod knows that he or she usually behaves.

Whatever it is, I doubt any of this will change any time soon. I'll just keep trying to avoid posting too much in General for the fear of getting a long ass ban.

Fail pictures should be banned.
That's all I really could say.

At 6/1/09 03:57 AM, gregaaron89 wrote: Stop making the word "F****t" or the shortened "f*g" a bannable offense

Well said. I completely agree. I think I might have been banned for it before and it's just stupid. It's like those obnoxious PSA's about not saying "That's so gay". It just gives the word more power and solves nothing. I'm not directly calling someone a homosexual and saying it's wrong to be gay, no one is getting offended, so what the hell does banning someone over that prove?

At 6/1/09 02:51 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Rebuttal

The problem is, and as users have pointed out many times, mods will do or say things that other users get banned for. And it's true. Especially concerning the word fag. We have mods who openly admit to using the word fag and don't care (I'm one of them, except I never personally attack people with it, or try not to, but instead I use it in humorous or ironic ways.)

Maybe this is something we should bring up with the admins again, because more than anything I believe it's just them not wanting words to be used to directly insult and berate other users. If they wanted the word banned, they could ban it like the N-word.

This is going to be a debate that just won't be won, and users are going to continue to get banned for using the word fag, while other users get away with it, and other users aren't caught, and users catch mods doing it. It's a Catch 22.

And I also believe this forum is pretty derogatory. Let's face it, people post threads about dicks, shit, bestiality, incest, etc. There is plenty of sick shit to go around. But, saying the word fag is crossing the line? It makes it 10x worse when paid staff members like Stamper use the word fag. Not that I have anything against him using the word, because I've made it clear that people using the word doesn't bother me.

So, let's recount. Admins can say fag, and some mods will say fag, while others will ban for the word no matter the circumstance. It's pretty clear why regulars leave this website. When you've been here since 2002 and you get banned for saying "fag" in the most leisurely, unoffensive manner, it's pretty fucking weak.

Oh, and while I'm on the subject of disagreeing with certain aspects of how this forum is moderated, I'd like to add how much I sincerely hate the destroy feature. I've said it many times in the mod lounge, and I feel bad because it's cool that the staff try to give us extra tools to make the job easier, but this one is way too easily taken advantage of.

It just makes the job of moderating much less personal and a lot more robotic. It's too easy to click a button and ban an entire thread because of it being "spammy." When I look through user ban records, they are loaded with bans from the destroy feature. I just looked at Gagsy's as an example, since she has a lot of posts and has been around a while, and lo and behold, it's a fucking laundry list of "Banned for posting in spam thread..." bans. Most of the time you will only get a one day ban, but it's still unjustified and totally ruins the experience of posting here.

When I look at records of regular posting users like Gagsy and see that many bans, especially ones from the destroy function, I think, "If this person is so bad, why the fuck haven't they gotten their account deleted yet?" Which is precisely the point. The person isn't bad at all, they just constantly get caught in the crossfire. Dedicated users to this website should not be getting banned so copiously.

At 6/1/09 05:02 AM, DirtySyko wrote: When I look at records of regular posting users like Gagsy and see that many bans, especially ones from the destroy function, I think, "If this person is so bad, why the fuck haven't they gotten their account deleted yet?" Which is precisely the point. The person isn't bad at all, they just constantly get caught in the crossfire. Dedicated users to this website should not be getting banned so copiously.

Exactly why bans should become a last resort and not taken so lightly. Punishing someone like gagsy, who often contributes to discussions exceptionally well for a couple of misguided spam posts, or a few one liners seems ridiculous, it doesn't help anyone and just makes all the regulars bitter and pissed off with the moderation here.

At 6/1/09 04:51 AM, DirtySyko wrote: So, let's recount. Admins can say fag, and some mods will say fag, while others will ban for the word no matter the circumstance. It's pretty clear why regulars leave this website. When you've been here since 2002 and you get banned for saying "fag" in the most leisurely, unoffensive manner, it's pretty fucking weak.

I don't see why any word should be banned, people use different words for different things, take "wog" for example, here in England it's just as bad as "The n word", in australia it's an innocent and commonly accepted word for a different group of people (I think?)

Instead of banning words, there should be a ban on personal attacks, or personal attacks that are without reason. I don't mind if someone calls me a faggot, it's the internet and that shit goes on constantly, it seems unreasonable to expect a community of internet users not to be offensive, it comes naturally to a lot of people. I use faggot constantly over IM and on other forums, not because I hate queers, it's just the way I speak.

At 6/1/09 01:45 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 6/1/09 12:00 AM, Grammer wrote: Also I've been talked to like shit by avie, and some other former mods, and I can't talk back to them, because I can't treat them like they treat me. After getting into an argument with cellardoor6 a real long time ago, started from a joke about the ion cannon that cd6 took seriously, Wade mocked me when he banned me, saying I should go work on that. I may be a dick sometimes, and I deserve most of the bans I receive, but I would like some fucking respect.

I'd just like to clarify. You get that from me because when you have asked me about these bans it's not from a "hey bro, why so harsh? Can we talk about this a bit?" sort of thing, you have used insulting and harsh language in the first message.

Because you were disrespectful in the ban messages.

I'm not an asshole, least I try not to be.

"This is why I'm a mod and you're not"

You basically told me you don't have to apologize to me for being rude, but when I apologized I was being "disingenuous". Sure I was. Whatever lets you sleep better at night.

Double Standards or no standards at all. More clarity and parity.

Here's my point. I posted some time ago a thread called "Pictures of your pets", unaware it had already been done before, and from memory it got removed, not just locked. But currently in the BBS threads is http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1066 204 the exact same topic, "Pictures of your Pets", from a noobie, who like me at the time obviously did'nt use the search bar. But will anything be done about it?

And the same can be said for the "Phobia" posts, I mean seriously, http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1066 161 and http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1064 182 not even 2000 posts apart and yet allowed to survive.

One of the things I've noticed is that if a mod personally finds something on the BBS annoying, then they will dish out unnecessarily long bans for doing whatever annoys them. If something will annoy everything else but not annoy the mod at all, then a shorter ban will be given. Where as if no one other than a mod finds something annoying, you could be facing a month's ban for it.

At 6/1/09 10:53 AM, gamejunkie wrote: And the same can be said for the "Phobia" posts, I mean seriously, http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1066 161 and http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1064 182 not even 2000 posts apart and yet allowed to survive.

Saying they're 'allowed to survive' is assuming that every moderator has checked and posting in them, when it's just not the case.

If you put your message in a PM and sent it to me, the most recent topic would be locked with a link to the previous one.

Assuming that the mods aren't doing their jobs properly because they missed something is pretty poor logic. Making a bad decision or a poor judgement call would be bad moderating, but if we've just overlooked something you really can't justify being so quick to jump on us for it.

Although every mod on the team knows what they're doing when it comes to duplicated threads and minor issues like that, there are still times when there are no moderators online for just long enough for a thread to drop off the front page and be missed completely.

When you see something like that, send one of us a PM and it'll be sorted out, or you'll get an explanation as to why not.

At 6/1/09 04:32 AM, vaIentine wrote: Too be 100% honest, I think a bunch of the old Newgrounds users left because of the redesign of the BBS. I was thinking of leaving myself, and Jonas - I've been around longer then you (well back in the Muffin days)...

Uhh... I've been around since the old BBS design? This is my second account?

The muffin days? Hell, I was there. I had a sig that said friend of the muffins for the longest time.

N*gger and faggot will be autobans from me 100% of the time until the higher authority decrees them acceptable. I've picked my side and am sticking with it. It's either all or nothing, IMO. Given the fact that 95% of the usage of either word on the General Forum is simply uncalled for and/or irresponsible, I have no qualms with my decision.

I'm not going to get into a big moralistic debate about these or other words, their respective degrees of "offensiveness," or the rather inconsequential effects banning or not banning them has on the BBS.

There are a few cases where I could let it slide, like if you're (maturely) talking about what someone else said or times like this thread where we're actually discussing it, i.e. that 5% of the time when it's not used irresponsibly.

Otherwise, I see them, you're banned. End of story. Deal with it. Keep it up: longer bans.

At 6/1/09 10:53 AM, gamejunkie wrote: Double Standards or no standards at all. More clarity and parity.

Happy to deliver, at least on this particular issue.

At 6/1/09 11:11 AM, Dry-Ice wrote:

At 6/1/09 10:53 AM, gamejunkie wrote: And the same can be said for the "Phobia" posts, I mean seriously, http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1066 161 and http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1064 182 not even 2000 posts apart and yet allowed to survive.

Saying they're 'allowed to survive' is assuming that every moderator has checked and posting in them, when it's just not the case.

If you put your message in a PM and sent it to me, the most recent topic would be locked with a link to the previous one.

Assuming that the mods aren't doing their jobs properly because they missed something is pretty poor logic. Making a bad decision or a poor judgement call would be bad moderating, but if we've just overlooked something you really can't justify being so quick to jump on us for it.

Although every mod on the team knows what they're doing when it comes to duplicated threads and minor issues like that, there are still times when there are no moderators online for just long enough for a thread to drop off the front page and be missed completely.

When you see something like that, send one of us a PM and it'll be sorted out, or you'll get an explanation as to why not.

Fair enough comments on some but not all of my comments. So why is the "Pictures of your pets" thread still open. http://www.newgrounds.com/ bbs/topic/1066204 when my exact same topic got deleted within seconds of posting it. With a message from I think it was Evark not completely sure about that, but the message said, NO PICTURE POST THREADS.

Following words/phrases need to be bannable:

Butthurt.
Owned.
Epic[...].

That's all I can think of. Seriously, seeing that shit clutter up a funny thread makes it a lot less humorous, especially when morons use them out of context.

In addition, I'd like to see BBS mods sticking to their jobs of modding the BBS. I know users that have been banned for antics in both off-site chats and user's blogs. That's not cool.

And the double standards of some mods is awful. For example, FunkBRS and his hate bandwagon. I have nothing against Funk. But if another user posted that sort of shit, nine times out of ten it'd be locked with a 'this goes in your blog' reply. Sorry to pick on you funky babes.

At 6/1/09 05:02 AM, DirtySyko wrote:

When I look at records of regular posting users like Gagsy and see that many bans, especially ones from the destroy function, I think, "If this person is so bad, why the fuck haven't they gotten their account deleted yet?" Which is precisely the point. The person isn't bad at all, they just constantly get caught in the crossfire. Dedicated users to this website should not be getting banned so copiously.

It may be wrong, but reading that just totally makes me feel less like a shite poster now.

I'm well aware a large number of my bans are from the old spam thread posting business and it has mostly affected what I post in now - Proof that spam thread banning does work, and I think mods are right to ban, just yeah, not everyone in the thread I guess. I and other users shouldn't need to worry about posting in threads for fear of getting banned, when we know we aren't going to break the rules with our replies.

Sure people will say "You care too much about being banned" but when posting here is like your favourite pastime online, you kinda don't want to keep getting banned.

At 6/1/09 11:26 AM, Zerok wrote: There are a few cases where I could let it slide, like if you're (maturely) talking about what someone else said or times like this thread where we're actually discussing it, i.e. that 5% of the time when it's not used irresponsibly.

I think that's a the golden standard, really.

I'm really glad we're having this open discussion, it's really overdue.

At 6/1/09 11:26 AM, gamejunkie wrote: So why is the "Pictures of your pets" thread still open. http://www.newgrounds.com/ bbs/topic/1066204 when my exact same topic got deleted within seconds of posting it. With a message from I think it was Evark not completely sure about that, but the message said, NO PICTURE POST THREADS.

You guys have to understand that everyone WON'T see everything. Some threads slip through and grow. It's much easier to kill a small topic than a big one because with a big one you have to go and look at the content of all the pages and see if real discussion has actually cropped up.

Also, there's the matter of the fact that spammish topics are ACTUALLY GOOD for the BBS every now and then. you know how the food guide says you need a small serving of fats and shit? That's like our spam. As mods we moderate, not eliminate. So if a few kinda spammy topics manage to slip through, that's actually healthy. If they get too out of control, they'll likely be put to sleep.

There's no formula for what amount of spam can stay. It won't be fair to some OPs. That's just the nature of things.

At 6/1/09 11:26 AM, Zerok wrote:

At 6/1/09 10:53 AM, gamejunkie wrote: Double Standards or no standards at all. More clarity and parity.

Happy to deliver, at least on this particular issue.

I know, you have been extremely helpful in the past. And its much appreciated. Yes I read your News posts as should other users. I find your moderating to be much above the average. At least you give clear reasoning for your bans, or thread locks, unlike some other Mod's. Same can be said for Dry-Ice and Evark, hard but fair. Cheers.

can any mods summarise what they've taken from what we've all said, whether or not you're going to change and if so, how?

It'd be nice to know that the discussion came to something ;)

At 6/1/09 11:36 AM, yhar wrote: can any mods summarise what they've taken from what we've all said, whether or not you're going to change and if so, how?

It'd be nice to know that the discussion came to something ;)

Dude, you sound like a guidance counselor or something.

At 6/1/09 11:36 AM, yhar wrote: can any mods summarise what they've taken from what we've all said, whether or not you're going to change and if so, how?

It'd be nice to know that the discussion came to something ;)

This would be lovely, because I really can't be fucked reading through 13 pages to see what has been suggested :3

And I'm sure that this has been mentioned before, but should someone really be banned for posting in a spam thread? (Excluding posting more spam in a spam thread, of course) Surely just banning the OP would solve the problem?

I'm sure alot of other people said it as well, but for me the worst thing on the BBS is by far the destroy thread tool.

I mean sure there are topics that degenerate into absolute shit but banning everyone that posted in the thread automatically just seems unfair to people that had no idea what they were getting into, or people that were actually replying seriously to a troll post.

Mostly I don't post as much as I used to because I'm paranoid about the type of threads that are 'okay'.

I'd abandon my post count just to avoid destroys. Getting banned like that just totally ruins the fun of NG.

At 6/1/09 11:40 AM, Me-Patch wrote: Dude, you sound like a guidance counselor or something.

school matters, do your homework or you'll end up in mcdonalds, don't give in to peer pressure and keep it covered. get a job.

General forum is exactly that: General. There are too many topics getting locked, some of which are of reasonable quality. Even if they weren't great topics, it's GENERAL, I honestly don't know what you're expecting from it. The demographic for the NG BBS isn't Cambridge graduates.

I've said it before, it would make more sense to keep General much more informal (let's face it, you guys have been trying for years to make General cleaner, and it's never going to happen) and concentrate your efforts on the other forums where actual discussion and talent is produced.

At 5/31/09 11:27 AM, Luis wrote: The backseat modding thing is the one that gets me. I have never heard of a more absurd reason to ban people.

Some people are passionate about helping. Yes, maybe to the point of then being annoying.
Go send them a PM, tell them to lay off...

The users should get a choice on some things. Maybe a couple of minor things, something to make us a little happier that we aren't completely powerless.

At 6/1/09 11:26 AM, Zerok wrote: N*gger and faggot will be autobans from me 100% of the time until the higher authority decrees them acceptable. I've picked my side and am sticking with it. It's either all or nothing, IMO. Given the fact that 95% of the usage of either word on the General Forum is simply uncalled for and/or irresponsible, I have no qualms with my decision.

I'm not going to get into a big moralistic debate about these or other words, their respective degrees of "offensiveness," or the rather inconsequential effects banning or not banning them has on the BBS.

There are a few cases where I could let it slide, like if you're (maturely) talking about what someone else said or times like this thread where we're actually discussing it, i.e. that 5% of the time when it's not used irresponsibly.

Otherwise, I see them, you're banned. End of story. Deal with it. Keep it up: longer bans.

At 6/1/09 10:53 AM, gamejunkie wrote: Double Standards or no standards at all. More clarity and parity.

Happy to deliver, at least on this particular issue.

Zerok, not to be a faggot but by you saying you don't want to get into debates makes you sound lazy, and by you saying that the users should suck it up and deal with it makes you look like an asshole. Unscrew your vagina and hop back into polite discourse.

I like how you say that it's going to be 100 % enforcement, and you mention that 95% is going to be used irresponsibly. If you are not going to take the extra effort to discern if the context is appropriate, it sounds like you're just not willing to take the extra time to do your job at that point.

Could you clarify? Because the way you're explaining it, it sounds like your throwing the kid out with the bathwater, and willing to ban users that haven't done anything wrong, solely because they didn't cross a line but came too close for comfort.

There can and will be times when both Nig ger and faggot are completely acceptable to use. You just may not realize it.

At 6/1/09 11:26 AM, Zerok wrote: N*gger and faggot will be autobans from me 100% of the time until the higher authority decrees them acceptable.

Well in that case you better hunt down every mod who uses the word and bring them before the admins because you can't continue banning people on your side for it while other mods use it.

At 6/1/09 11:56 AM, deckheadtottie wrote: I've said it before, it would make more sense to keep General much more informal (let's face it, you guys have been trying for years to make General cleaner, and it's never going to happen) and concentrate your efforts on the other forums where actual discussion and talent is produced.

THANK YOU

Couldn't have said it better myself

We're not going to "invade the forums with intellect". I want dick jokes, and I want them here. I need a work safe version of /b/, though with considerably less cancer and spam. If I wanted intelligent discussion, I'd head back on over to Poli.

What I don't get is why the words are disallowed; Who actually takes them seriously? I've never come across someone who is offended by faggot or niggur.