Nexxushost Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

SMF - Just Installed!

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

Author Topic: Uh. What.  (Read 33911 times)

CherryBerry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
    • View Profile
Uh. What.
« on: August 05, 2015, 08:06:48 PM »

You're a bit fucking late for april fools, Familiar. Explain.
Logged

Familiar

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
  • Dial NotFam for Skype
    • View Profile
Re: Uh. What.
« Reply #1 on: August 05, 2015, 08:24:40 PM »

Just taking out some old garbage that was beginning to smell.

Logged

CherryBerry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
    • View Profile
Re: Uh. What.
« Reply #2 on: August 05, 2015, 08:26:49 PM »

You may or may not be completely mistaken in that baseless accusation train. Do you have any proof of.. whatever it was I did wrong?

Edit: Also, with how you mistreat your users instead of acting like an adult (proof: See above) I can't help but wonder how you're still a global.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2015, 08:33:33 PM by CherryBerry »
Logged

Rom Spaceknight

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
Re: Uh. What.
« Reply #3 on: August 05, 2015, 10:24:28 PM »

Logged

CherryBerry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
    • View Profile
Re: Uh. What.
« Reply #4 on: August 06, 2015, 10:58:52 AM »

It's a sad sight to see when a user can't even get proof of what they've supposedly done, and instead gets ignored.

Familiar, I'd like you to give me something to go on here aside from "just taking out the trash." Which I might add, is rather rude.
Logged

Crest

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 147
  • τοῖς τολμῶσιν ἡ τύχη ξύμφορος
    • View Profile
Re: Uh. What.
« Reply #5 on: August 07, 2015, 12:20:51 AM »

There's a lot of stories about this floating around. 

Supposedly Cheri was supposedly someone previously banned.

Asking that previously banned person, they say they were banned for "harassing" someone that refused to leave them alone, by banning the person from multiple user rooms they were popping into.

Whether or not current person is said person is open to various debate.

I do think it's reasonable for them to ask of any sort of proof of it.   This is a devil's advocate position, however.

I don't think it's by any stretch professional to respond to a user like that, whether or not they "deserved" being extracted from TK.  It's just bad image.  It's also a bit ironic because this seems to be a bit personal when the same moderators have been asked for answers on many things before and it went ignored for weeks.  Now, this one earns replies in minutes and the others go unanswered.

I know there's been issues lifting bans, but placing them is a different matter.

It does strike me as a bit strange.


Edit:  Looking back, the previous ban appeal for the person they supposedly were was never even answered.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2015, 12:29:03 AM by Crest »
Logged

mysterymegz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Uh. What.
« Reply #6 on: August 07, 2015, 12:31:51 AM »

I always thought that when you banned someone you had to have proof. I have been banned once ages ago and they were able to show me proof of what I have done. It isn't right to just ban someone because rumours are floating around.

I agree with what Crest is saying.
Logged

AsinineVulpine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 166
    • View Profile
Re: Uh. What.
« Reply #7 on: August 07, 2015, 01:26:31 PM »

I always thought that when you banned someone you had to have proof. I have been banned once ages ago and they were able to show me proof of what I have done. It isn't right to just ban someone because rumours are floating around.

I agree with what Crest is saying.

1 post
registered literally today.
this is their first and only post

??


???


?????
Logged

Furr

  • Guest
Re: Uh. What.
« Reply #8 on: August 07, 2015, 02:54:34 PM »

Well, it looks like it's a permanent ban that slipped through the cracks and was properly reinstated again, so there's that.
Logged

CherryBerry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
    • View Profile
Re: Uh. What.
« Reply #9 on: August 07, 2015, 02:55:54 PM »

Furr - Do you have proof of this? or a screenshot? Or anything?
Logged

CherryBerry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
    • View Profile
Re: Uh. What.
« Reply #10 on: August 07, 2015, 03:20:58 PM »

Aaaand he logs off instead of responding.

If you don't have proof of anything, this is a baseless ban.
Logged

Furr

  • Guest
Re: Uh. What.
« Reply #11 on: August 07, 2015, 04:21:06 PM »

I logged off, because it's past midnight at this point in time.

But from what I've seen on the reasons, you implicated yourself to someone who then relayed the information to the staff, who then took action.

Proof will come out, but I won't be the one posting it here, I'll let the moderators do that.
Logged

CherryBerry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
    • View Profile
Re: Uh. What.
« Reply #12 on: August 07, 2015, 04:22:29 PM »

And until then I'll wait for said proof. Otherwise, I'm going to believe it's a baseless ban. A screenshot from the person I supposedly implicated myself to would be nice, instead of the globals going on word of mouth.
Logged

CherryBerry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
    • View Profile
Re: Uh. What.
« Reply #13 on: August 07, 2015, 04:31:01 PM »

Plus, even then - Even if I was who you think I am. Crest's post has details that make me believe the person in question didn't deserve to be banned in the first place. Who was the person banned by? Familiar. As far as I care, she's been banning people left and right for next to no reason and getting away with it with the same snide, smug attitude she gave me when I asked her why in the first place.
Logged

Auvic

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Uh. What.
« Reply #14 on: August 07, 2015, 07:25:03 PM »

Hi, Ombudsman weighing in.

1. Person who provided evidence has asked to remain anonymous, and the staff has a policy of complying with such wishes.
2. Your attitude, Cherry, is completely in line with what any reasonable staff member would expect from someone who's been banned/permabanned in the past, and you're doing a very good job of reinforcing any opinions as to why you should remain banned with said attitude.
3. Mods and Ombuds have enough visual proof to stand by your banning.

@Crest:
Given the user's current behavior, it's not exactly difficult to guess who they were. And if you know who they are, please, feel free to name them :)
The original ban was in place for a reason; the current ban is in place for a similar reason.
The request for proof is always valid, but we don't have any strong precedent for providing it, especially when people have asked to remain anonymous.


If you have any further questions, feel free to ask, but unless something significant changes, we have no reason to reverse the ban.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10