WTF? Gurdur? Banned @ IIDB?

[Matt]

By the way, I'd welcome you all to come and beat the metaphorical shit out of sixday's 'arguments' in this thread, or at least share in my anguish as I continually stay involved instead of walking away from the fuckwit.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by dipertni

I' may not always agree with you, but I'd welcome you.

Thanks, much appreciated. That was pure sarcasm, though. Nothin' good could come of that.

[Fisher]

Hey Guys,

I started a thread at IIDB to let posters know that the discussion about Gurdur has been furthered here.

This is what I said:

Originally Posted by Fisher @IIDB

Hey Guys,

Since the thread entitled "The Gurdur Problem" was locked, the conversation has been continued at a different venue. You can check it all out here.

Gurdur himself is there, and it is nice not to have to speculate. You can hear his stance straight from the horse's ass...oops...I mean mouth.

It was deleted as if it was never there within 30 mins of its post. I saw EverlastingGodStopper report the post, it was deleted, and then I got a PM from Admin.

The PM said not to attempt to open locked threads. I then asked to for a reference to the IIDB rule that I was in violation of and this was given:

How about the section in the rules that says that people are supposed to cooperate with moderator directions?

Funny, huh?

I guess KingLouie and I could PM all the participants of the threads and let them know that the converstion has been continued.

[Fisher]

Sorry, I wanted to add that I never attempted to reopen any thread at IIDB. I only was redirecting people that wanted to continue the debate to a place where they could.

[Matt]

Who gave you this response: "How about the section in the rules that says that people are supposed to cooperate with moderator directions? "

That's inappropriate and needs to be addressed.

[Fisher]

I would rather not post his name for privacy reasons.

[Matt]

You can PM me, I'm a moderator at IIDB and it needs to be (or rather should be) addressed.

[Matt]

Or actually, you don't need to. I'll address the issue anyway and whomever wrote it will surely come out of the woodwork in defense of it.

[Fisher]

I posted a complaint there. I'll PM you the name.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Fisher

It was deleted as if it was never there within 30 mins of its post.

That would be censorship, so it's not possible that it happened there. The post was simply moved to cold storage for eternal moderator review.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

That would be censorship, so it's not possible that it happened there. The post was simply moved to cold storage for eternal moderator review.

Yup, that's where it is. I'm finishing up here at work but I'll address this ASAP.

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by Fisher

I posted a complaint there.

Fisher,
I greatly appreciate it, but let's face it; I am a bad-tempered bastard with a stern critical eye, IOW I am no nice King Louie: I would hate to see you get into trouble on my behalf; I'm only a short-tempered Aussie atheist with a taste for mordant quips.

[King Louie]

Trouble? Trouble??!?

Let me tell you something, man: it ain't like they're gonna be reaching through the computer monitor and grabbing Fisher's lip, y'knowwudimsayin?

That's why I like the internet so much, yo: I can bust someone's balls freely, without the fear that I'll be having to use salve after it's all over. Can't be doing that kind of thing down here in Bama, in person, because I went to prep school and stuff like that.

From the Jungles of Baccitracin,

Kang Louie

[Matt]

Okay, I registered my disgust which such an 'official' reply. For the record, I can understand why your post might be closed (but not deleted). I pointed out that if such vague generalization of rules are needed for official actions, either the rules or the actions need revising.

I'll keep you updated.

[Fisher]

Thanks man. I appreciate it.

[Fisher]

Originally Posted by dipertni

For the record, I can understand why your post might be closed (but not deleted).

Sorry again, I was rereading your post, and I wanted to add that I understand why my thread might be locked. If I was a mod at IIDB, I would have probably locked my thread. Discussion of the mods actions has been suspended there. It would be in complete accordance to their wishes to lock the thread.

[livius drusus]

That's highly cool of you, dipertni. I was disappointed by the first lock -- there was nothing even remotely rule-breaking in that thread -- but the deletion of Fisher's post is really beyond the pale. If simply raising a topic because a previous discussion of it was locked is now against the rules, then that moderator cooperation clause can be used not just to ban people but to silence all members in good standing as well.

[MollyMac]

Yes, good call, dip. I've just skimmed the rules and see nothing to justify the deletion of Fisher's thread.

This whole business is getting crappier by the minute

[Matt]

The powers that are, or at least the ones involved with the incident, see nothing wrong with the response given to Fisher- it was just an unofficial quick reply alerting the user to the rules. Also noted was that citing PM's was against the rules.

This wasn't even covering the action of deleting the thread itself- I understand and agree it was the right thing to do (well, closing the thread at least..not deleting) under the letter of the rules, although I don't agree with the rules on this matter.
Make of that what you will.

[Fisher]

Originally Posted by dipertni

The powers that are, or at least the ones involved with the incident, see nothing wrong with the response given to Fisher- it was just an unofficial quick reply alerting the user to the rules. Also noted was that citing PM's was against the rules.

This wasn't even covering the action of deleting the thread itself- I understand and agree it was the right thing to do (well, closing the thread at least..not deleting) under the letter of the rules, although I don't agree with the rules on this matter.
Make of that what you will.

I understand the deal with privacy, but how can I post a complaint in P&C about moderation without citing the moderation in question? I never disclosed the moderator's name, not even here. He did that on his own.

I do not understand that the reply was unoffical. The moderator's opinion was certainly offical enough to take away an entire thread, therefore I would imagine that his response to me in regards to the incident would be offical as well. I would venture to say that almost any time an admin puts his "admin hat" on and sends you a PM to tell about an edit to your post, things have to be pretty damn offical.

[Skep]

From the POV of a relative outsider, it seems as though IIDB is on a fast track to choking to death on its tome of written and unwritten rules and their enforcement by a veritable army of mods and admins with inconsistent interpretations thereof.

[Dingfod]

Considering the traffic there, I think IIDB is a long way from choking to death.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by warrenly

Considering the traffic there, I think IIDB is a long way from choking to death.

I was thinking about that earlier and I'd have to agree that IIDB is in no danger of suffocation. I have no doubt the public discussion of this issue will be done in days, anyone who leaves over this (which probably won't be many, imo) will be quickly replaced, and the most valued users (ie. the most staunch anti-religionists and metanat proponents and the brainiacs--literally, not pejoratively--that don't really pay attention to forum politics) aren't going anywhere. I believe I've seen it all before, and before, and before...

[King Louie]

The United States has a high traffic count -- it's not going anywhere for a long, long time, I'd imagine.

And everybody knows that the reason the United States is so flourishing is because of its fair-handed moderation in dealing with the rest of the world. The United States is not going to suffocate any time soon, because it's right across the boards. Generally speaking, of course.

From the Jungles of High Traffic Count,

Kang Louie

[Dingfod]

Gotcha, Kang.