At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
Socialist workshop: A group, country, or establishment that rules and regulations are delegated by the government(staff) and authority to change or alter is not subject to or by civilians(members). This is true. This is how the site operates. The admins make decisions and all property is owned by them and the members don't own anything. They just use the site. All funding(traffic or money made by adds) goes to the government(staff) and not the members. As for the 2nd guy, yes, it's true. No one was hacking. It was stupid to think that. He was being harassed. Just ignore him. No crime was committed. Move on with your life. Getting banned by melodramatic teen mods. Interesting... I didn't flame. I didn't spam. I didn't troll. I didn't post pornography. I didn't go off-topic. I didn't advertise. I didn't break U.S statue or code. I didn't cuss. I am not in violation of anything, yet I get banned for spam. I wonder how admins choose moderators. Do you put a name in a hat and pick them or something? Seriously.
Konrad even agreed with me that the site was a socialist workshop by say, "we make rules for you to abide by and follow." Exactly. Yet, he says it's not a socialist workshop? I don't understand his logic. Do you appoint 8th graders as moderators, guys?
Assuming you got suspended for the second question, you're being suspended for being disrespectful of other users. Something you should be well aware is against the code of conduct at this point, so you have exactly zero excuse or ground to stand on protesting said suspension. I'll make sure the moderators provide the right reasoning in the future, assuming you weren't *also* spamming, which I don't have time to verify either way. As for socialism, this site doesn't have an economy. Socialism is an economic model. So, no, this isn't a socialist anything. You can call it an oligarchy, if you'd like. That said, we do hold our moderators to our own standards, and we've had to remove moderators a very limited number of times due to misbehavior.
What we have always said, however, is that if you have a problem with moderator decisions, you email email@example.com . This is not the proper forum for having such concerns answered, particularly given that as admins we don't check OS Feedback as often as we used to, while we get abuse emails more or less immediately.
I wouldn't call that rude. I was being blunt with him. Telling him how it is. If he's just going to complain about it or just sit there and do nothing, making the same spam topics; then she should delete his account.
You resorted to personal attacks. That is rude in every definition of the word. If you had just said: “Hacking is illegal. You don't stop one because they're malicious. Just ignore the person and report them. He can't harass you if you don't take part in conversing.” That would have been blunt, but not exceedingly rude. Your statement called something someone else did “stupid” to their face, and recommended that they delete their account (i.e., attempted to ostracize them from the community). That is both unproductive and rude, and it is unacceptable in this community.
I thought I was quite firm with him. Stuff like that builds character. you know? I'm not sure what your definition of flame is, or the age rating for the site. However, I am assuming that all content is to be kept PG-13. Saying something like, "silly head," or, "dork fish," can be considered flame if the ratings were G for this website. Saying, "stupid," is a form of flame, yes. In my defense, it was not a mature form of flame. I did not step outside the boundaries given to me because the comment was kept PG-13/ With that said, I correlate that such things cannot be taken as rude on here, even if the user complains. No one here is claiming a special right to be offended, correct? By suspending me for this, it shows a complete subjective term for the rules. All someone has to do is claim that aforementioned special right to be offended. What's next, someone gets called, "a silly silly," and that person gets suspended? I didn't flame in accordance to the site. I was blunt. There is no reason for a suspension. Then again, you can't really reason with authority on most of these sites.
Moderators and admins exist precisely to judge how the rules apply, much like members of the justice system in most structured societies. There is a group of us so that we can act as a check on each other. If you find yourself saying that a comment you made “builds character”, you can be 99.9% certain that you are being deliberately rude, and that that comment is not acceptable on OpenStudy. “Builds character” is code for “I can be rude because there are other rude people out there”. Not on this site.
No, it wasn't meant to be received with such strong implications. There is some vagueness in the rules concerning what is appropriate or not. Some of the regulations aren't built on a solid foundation. I'm disagreeing with the floppy criteria which individuals can be judged. My suggestion was that, people shouldn't get other people suspended over hurt feelings. Accounting personal emotions; whether someone likes or dislikes what you said, introduces a broad range of unspoken rules. No one can predict if what you say will offend someone else. Quite frankly, no one should have to worry if their language or way of expressing themselves will put petty emotional hurt on someone. It's not like I cursed her to Hell or F-bombed her lifestyle. I think it's uncalled for to get banned for 4 days because of the word, "stupid." I understand that suspension time is at a moderators discretion. However, I strongly suggest that mods be more fair and punish you based upon your offense. In the current system, unfair bans don't exist to people who break a rule. I can get banned for a year simply because I called someone, "stupid," given these regulations. I've only ever been suspended twice. One time I was on here after drinking. I gave out some invalid answers and rambled on. I spammed, but not deliberately. I was only banned for 60 minutes. Now, in this case, I called someone, "stupid," and get banned for 4 days? The current system naturally flawed.
I'm not sure if you meant the “builds character” remark wasn't meant to be received with such strong implications or whether you meant the original remark wasn't. Either way, this is the Internet, there is no tone of voice, no off-hand wink or grin, no indicator beyond your words to tell what your “true meaning” is. As such, yes, you must speak more carefully. You must be more aware of what can be construed as insulting. “Quite frankly, no one should have to worry if their language or way of expressing themselves will put petty emotional hurt on someone.” We clearly subscribe to fundamentally different world views. That is a concern every time you open your mouth to speak in an avenue where rudeness is frowned upon. You don't worry about that with your friends, and you may not worry about that in common social discourse, but this site is explicitly designed with younger individuals in mind and younger people tend to be more likely to misconstrue statements and be hurt. As such, more caution is expected, and the rules around respect are enforced more strictly. Hurt feelings are not sufficient to get you suspended. But brash statements that lead to hurt feelings *can* be, particularly if you've been warned before about said brashness, which I know you have as I have been the originator of some of those warnings, official or not. That said, you're right that the suspension length was probably excessive. I'll talk to the moderator who issued the suspension about what triggered that severity of length.
(Challenge round: figure out what changed between my first post of that previous reply and my fixed post -.-)
I've always been under the impression that our content or context we post has to stay at or below PG-13. Regardless of what it may be. That is why I'm so blunt and use insults like, "silly," or, "dumb," to describe a situation that I find shallow and pedantic. Thank you for looking into it.
While I'm still talking with the original suspender, I do see that another moderator reasonably quickly reduced the length of the suspension. So in this case I see the system working exactly as it's meant to, with moderators acting as a check on each other.
I see. Thanks for giving me the heads up. Ehh. I'm older enough to be your father, Shadow. What am I doing with my life? On a children's site discussing rules. Heh.
Still, I appreciate you looking into the suspension.
>Seven months ago. @poopsiedoodle , how did you find this? The user who posted this thread doesn't even use this account anymore.
>you posted the thread >The user who posted this thread doesn't even use this account anymore. K @e.mccormick linked to a google search for Shadowfiend Community Suspension, and this was one of the links that showed up.
Well - the two current users on Compassionate are me and Alysha - the co-users are David, and the previous user was Mark. The account was created by Alysha, though I dominantly use it. Mark was a user of this account - an old friend, who had two kids, and used this site through them to help with homework. He just turned 57 in June. See >> @sephl That's the account he uses now.