SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

Ajp_18

Membre depuis
21 mars 2018
Équipe favorite
Blue Jackets de Columbus
Deuxième équipe favorite
Kraken de Seattle
Messages dans les forums
9851
Messages par jour
4.5
Forum: Discussion24 janv. à 17 h 23
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>BeterChiarelli</b></div><div>It was something implemented early in the scandal to avoid rampant speculation. It's not something we need to maintain, and I leave that to the collective.

I'm still not 100% comfortable with pointing fingers until it's confirmed (press conference is on Feb 5th) and nor am I really interested in a bunch of comments in AGMs or discussion threads along the lines of "X team declines because [player] is a sex offender". Twitter itself has been a cesspool since Dube, Hart, and now the two NJD skaters took their leave of absence from their respective clubs.

I present this only as an honest question and not as an accusation, but is that what we should be fostering here? I personally don't value engagement and clicks over much more focused discussions and the only real discussion of importance the hockey community as a whole should be having surrounding the 2018 WJC team is "what can we do as the hockey community to make sure this doesn't happen again?". Vitriol and anger over the five names in speculation isn't doing anything effective and if anything just opens up more avenues for flaming/trolling.</div></div>

TBH I'm not for blindly giving infractions/deleting posts in regards to the WJC unless it clearly breaks a rule. Simply stating an opinion on it isn't against the rules IMHO. If someone takes to the next level of saying things that are derogatory that don't have any pertinence to what's going on and just meant to shock/flame, etc, than yes.

I think unless Banks/Jarvis suggest otherwise, we should take our opinions out of the equation here altogether. Are they breaking a rule? Yes &gt; Warning/infraction/Delete. If not, you need allow for a certain level of free speech.

As much as I get the reasoning for wanting to calm it, there isn't anything wrong with Rampant speculation. The whole point of the forum is to have a discussion (within the rules) so that everyone feels free to contribute. If users are having a discussion in regards to the speculation, there isn't anything wrong with that. Once again within the CF rules and our judgement will have to come into play obviously.
Forum: Discussion24 janv. à 13 h 32
Forum: Discussion24 janv. à 16 h 12
Forum: Discussion24 janv. à 16 h 37
Forum: Discussion24 janv. à 16 h 40
Forum: Discussion4 déc. 2023 à 12 h 18
Forum: Discussion3 déc. 2023 à 22 h 31
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Jarvis</b></div><div>A multi account detection:
Kinger25
SomeonesOffended
JesikaMorris</div></div>

Hey Jarvis, just curious, how does the detection work exactly? Like did you scan these users manually or do you get some sort of alert when a few are detected? Is their a way to upscale detections/ feed all the users accounts through the detectors to see any multi's, etc? Maybe do a once a month purge? :squinty

Also, just on a side note, looping <a href="/users/banks" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@banks</a> as well, is this all even really necessary? I only ask because this kind of feels like a endless endeavor to a certain extent. If a user creates a second account, the multi gets banned but not the original. If the original later gets banned for whatever reason, they just create a new account which won't get flagged for a while (Not to mention the myriad of ways to create a second acct with a different IP to avoid detection, etc) And frankly unless one of the mods on a hunch, suspects the user of being a multi and asks one of you, the only other way of knowing is through the multi detectors which unless we're being notified on the regular, they'll have tons of time to post and comment. Chances are they'd probably just create another account and we'll not even know till months in anyway.

May just be easier to let users create secondary accounts? Its not like the current process is really deterring anyone. I'm pretty sure there's a Detroit/Tampa fan that is on their 100th account since they started on here. They don't even try to hide it anymore and know if we ban them, they'll just create a new one tomorrow.
Forum: Discussion22 nov. 2023 à 23 h 4
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>BeterChiarelli</b></div><div>I fully intended it as a warning, not a threat, something I've done on multiple occasions to a generally positive reaction: taking the opportunity to actually engage with them instead of just slapping on an infraction or warning has been a productive tool for me historically. Based on that user's posting history, I'm not at all surprised that they jumped at the opportunity to play the victim.

I'd ask you go back and re-read their replies: they were pretty obviously goading me into where that conversation went. Should I have known better than to engage? Yes. Am I comfortable walking it back? Right now, no. The damage is already done. I'll reconsider in the morning when I'm less charged about it.

In the meantime, I take no issue with stopping my practice of warning users via replies.</div></div>

Sorry man, I disagree and have read the entire post. While there's snark there sure at one point, its totally tolerable and within the rules IMHO. No more than some of my replies to be absolutely honest. As much as its annoying as f***, "goading" at least that level isn't infraction worthy if its done within the rules.

I do believe this was more against the rules than anything he did:

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quote:</div>Are you missing the point where you're adding them to teams that already have relatively complete rosters at half-price? Imagine if you weren't being a FACETIOUS ASS and considered what the Oilers could do with an extra $11M to spend on their team.</div>

And this IMHO looks like a power trip as there was clearly nothing done to cross any lines.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quote:</div>If you want to keep trolling, go for it. I have no issues with infracting you accordingly.</div>

Listen, i prefer the mods take the onus themselves to correct the situation if there is some sort of dispute against them because 1) If I just delete everything it just looks like we're just trying to cover everything up and 2) if you were given an warning/infraction, they'd never know about it which only leaves them questioning if mods are above the law so to speak.

Honestly, just easier for everyone to get ahead of it and clear the air. Believe me, if I truly felt he was in the wrong here I'd gladly be throwing down some words but I can't in good conscience say he did anything wrong there and if anything, respectfully, you were much more in the wrong than he was.
Forum: Discussion27 nov. 2023 à 23 h 33
Forum: Discussion27 nov. 2023 à 23 h 12