Admin and Mods Not Treating their Members Correctly

[R1lover]

That was a big whoops, sorry guys lol

you, R1, deserves a little kick in the bump... tsssss clients...

[Paul M]

Originally Posted by Digital Jedi

Nope, the real issue is that this thread was originally posted in Aug of 2007 and someone bumped it out of obscurity.

The fact the thread is a year old does not make it any less relevant now.

[iogames]

Originally Posted by Paul M

The fact the thread is a year old does not make it any less relevant now.

There's a correlation: They don't get paid - We sometimes don't behave - We all want 'recognition' toward our efforts

[popowich]

Can someone please fix the subject?

There -> their

It's irritating.

Thank you,

-Raymond

[Digital Jedi]

Originally Posted by Paul M

The fact the thread is a year old does not make it any less relevant now.

Heh, if only presidential elections worked that way.

[Rapscallion]

Originally Posted by Paul M

The fact the thread is a year old does not make it any less relevant now.

Very true. I've got a situation where I've had to ban a sociopath from my main forum, and as a safeguard I had to ban him from the overflow 'debate' forum. He wants back on the debate forum, claiming he'd done nothing there. To a certain extent, it's true, but the fact is that I don't want him polluting my server. I'm currently getting 'contact us' used roughly twice a day at the moment, so I just added a topic of "I'm whining and can't take a hint".

I could set up something to delete his emails before they get to me, but they cheer me up. No matter how shitty my life gets, I'm not him.

Rapscallion

[davidw]

A weird approach but worked nonetheless..
I had a member on my forum that signed up to debate his version of a "truth." Immediately red flags went up as what he posted was copyrighted (I have my staff check most posts for copyrighted materials/text/etc as its posted), so it was removed. I did a thorough search and found out this user would recreate new usernames if banned/removed/etc, so playing on that card, we told him what his issue was - copyright infringement (and a couple other broken rules). A couple days later, he used the contact us form to contact me and dispute me saying me taking down the copyrighted materials was wrong, etc., and I thoroughly explained to him our rules, policies and procedures - offering him that if he wanted to post, we had no problem with him posting (even encouraged it - on his topic), where he could post and that it must be within said rules and policies.

He wrote back one more time - and I ignored it. I've not heard back since (at all).

[Rapscallion]

I've just been told that adding the 'contact us' reason of "I'm banned and can't take a hint" is 'very funny'.

Glad he liked it.

Rapscallion

[TigerWare]

I'd like to make a note on the following statement... sorry, missed it first time out as I have been away.

Originally Posted by DiesellMinded

Any Site with out a privacy Policy thats not Stock I would not Trust

What is the intent of this statement? Many forum owners do not have their own privacy policy and rely on whatever the vBulletin installation provides (or not as the case may be). This is fine.

Every professionally run forum will have a custom Privacy Policy written specifically for the context of the website on which it resides. You cannot possibly have a "stock" policy because it is not keyed to a site, though you can use a stock policy as a template.

So, what is DiesellMinded going on about? Would you not trust my own website simply because I'll be posting a professional Privacy Policy and Terms of Use geared to what my site will be about? By DiesellMinded's definition, vB.ORG is not to be trusted because they have their own custom Privacy Policy.

How silly.

As for PaulM's MU, it is fab, and is used against those eejits that really cannot take a hint and leave our boards alone. Long may it reign, and Mods like it. :up:

Happy days.