As much as a certain segment of posters likes to complain about the JF moderating policies, this is the way most long-established team boards operate. TroutBum lasted about 4 days on Realgm before being punted out of existence. The irony of Hopper's post is that it seems to imply that all boards that ban users based on moderation policies are equally bad because it places the power to destroy in the hands of someone, but I think it's difficult for any reasonable person to conclude that JF is as capricious as whatever Raptors board he pulled that from. Alas when the world is black and white the obvious difference is rendered meaningless.
From what I can tell (not much, really) the raptor's board has a rule against insulting others (calling someone "dumb" or a "moran" is deemed to be an insult). If that's the rule, and if it's uniformly enforced, then fine. Frankly, I get a little weary of those kinda petty insults bein bandied about on this here board 24/7. But there are also indications that it is not a uniformly enforced rule.
This was apparently a dispute between a Lithuanian poster, who suggested that Klieiza was their best shooter and should be gettin more shots (he was 2-4, at the time), and a Spaniad moderator who said Klieiza was terrible. The poster said he was an idiot who didn't even look at the stat sheet before making the proclamation, and suggested he was prejudiced against Klieza because Lithuania beat Spain in some European contest. Any of this sound kinda familiar?
The Spaniard mod apparently issued two quick infractions, and then an admin stepped in and administered the coup de grace to the poster for his last post, explaining that he was a "jackass." The mod who gave the infractions indicated that he had been lenient with this poster in the past when the banned poster was presumably "insulting" other (non-mod) posters. The point has to do with human nature, not Jazzfanz.
Those that claim not to understand the rules here are a small but vocal subset, and probably always will be.
I have yet to see ANYBODY, let alone some subset, claim they understand the rules here. At least not anybody who could back up their claim with any kinda coherent explication of the rules.
From the way I understand Colton, punishable offenses are what 3 mods deem them to be. Once that's determined, you'll know what you did "wrong."
I don't know what 2814 was issued an infraction for (such things seldom are known by any non-moderator), and I didn't pay particularly close attention to every post he made. That said, I didn't see anything that stood out as bein unusual in this forum. Which leads one to wonder why he got an infraction when others don't. Because the mods "just don't like him," mebbe?
All I said is that I would prefer that "pretexts" be avoided, for the sake of clarity if nuthin else. If a poster is punished because the mods don't like him or because they disagree with the positions he takes, they should just say so, rather than claim it is because he violated some "rule'" which they routinely let those they like violate.
