She's just like getluv.

Yeah I hate Getluv but certainly not Korrgan. I think they're very different.

Zep isn't a new member though. I think he's been a member for over a year now. Last night was the first time I'm aware anyone has had a problem with him. He isnt' a spammer or troll, bot at all. Did he show some spammer/trolling behavior last night? Sure. But I do know that a few forums he posts at are more, I guess care free in nature. Including one forum that has as many as 1000 people on at once. Yes, they aren't KJ, so it matters very little. My point here though is that you have to expect some members who have not been here for years or waste their days here posting to probably think at times what they are doing may not be exactly "Wrong". Doesn't mean you have to treat them differently really, but instantly banning someone who has been a member for over a year over one night of spamming/trolling by KJ standards is probably a little much especially since he wasn't warned to change his behavior or anything of the sort.

I don't want to be treated any differently than someone like Zep, or any new member. It can really cause double standards to happen in some cases and I really don't see how it's fair if a member has been here for 4 years is less likely to be banned than a member who has been here for 1 year. This will indeed cause issues with gaining, and keeping, new members I would think?

I brought my pic up because Nebs mentioned it in the water cooler. About not posting pics of other members, etc. Wanted to clarify that since it seemed many had the wrong idea.

I don't see relevant differences.

my apologies then on the zep being a new member then. i honestly have no idea who he is, nor did loyal. is aw the posts yesterday and was left wondering who he was. i take back the indefinete banning comment then .. but sitll .. i think with the extreme the person to yesterday, i'm glad they were banned without a warning. i'd extend that to any member who did that.

I never understood the attraction of posting at multiple forums. This is directed to the Zeps of KJ (I think you know who you are).

Maybe its a teenage thing.

I don't think any apologizes are needed. He's posted approximately 252 times since signing up in April of 2007. That wouldn't even qualify as seasonal help at Wal-Mart.

It makes a bit more sense to have a presence at a forum before running off and posting stuff that's likely to get you banned. Otherwise, I do believe we call that spamming, regardless if you have a million posts at Filmorgasm.net or whatever the hell its called.

Glad this didn't turn into an argument. We disagree, often, but we usually remain "civil" when we do discuss things and actually talk about them instead of responding with "hahahahaha", "shut up", etc.

An IP ban is too much, really. Was Zep out of line by KJ standards? Yes, and yes, I'm saying KJ standards since most of last nights events aren't treated with bannings, maybe a few warnings, but not bannings at some forums I do know he posts at. So the decisions, etc. should remain soley what happens at the forum the posting is being done on. KJ in this discussion. But I still don't see why Zep couldn't have been warned perhaps about his behavoir and told he would be banned for a week for it whether right or wrong. Trying not to criticize that decision that was made, but it really did seem like it was based on some idea Zep was a very recent member who has only trolled or spammed the forum, which wasn't the case. Haven't searched his posts myself, but I do know he has taken part in Box Office and Award discussions before around here.

And yes, the idea (if I'm reading your post correctly) of warning/banning anyone based on how long they have been here, etc. is not a good idea.

I got banned for a week with no warning.

It's for the better.

I've seen many personal attacks in this thread, yet the mods do nothing.

Then they basically confirm they have a bias against members that have been here a long time.

The moderation is appalling.

Zep was banned for 1 week.



unless something changed since then, i believe thats whats happened.

For the record Corpse I was advocating Zep's IP ban because he was and still is taking pictures from this site and posting and exploiting them elsewhere on the internet without permission. I assumed the way to punish and stop him from doing that would be to take away his ability to visit the forum and threads at all. As bABA stated though once they're online they're viable to creepy people of any sort, so yeah, whatev, I can live with it. Mine are removed anyways.

I think it's clear though that aside from you/Ev@n/harry, no-one wants the Zep of last night here again. He was clearly trolling and looking for attention and stirring things up. It was not a matter of getluv/Chip/Korrgan style light posting, it was spamming.

As for the jujubee thing, her remark at Corpse was wrong, but sent in a PM, which is "behind closed doors" as you will, as in AIM. I'm not gonna say that let's her off the hook, but from what I gather the KJ rules are and can only be enforced in the forum, what's said in private messages is their business. Furthermore, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because juju seemingly got away with dropping 'death', doesn't mean that eliminates the rules. What Zep said was still incredibly distasteful and brutal. If anything the shitfest juju's comment has brought on only solidifies why for the health of the forum comments going that low should be met with punishment. And yes I had assumed he posted your picture without your permission, after all you did respond with a "wut" after he originally did it, showing you were going along with the game.

I think at the end of the day, the rules were broken and the only people complaining about it are you and Ev@n because you're friends with him and can't speak objectively about the situation, unlike the mods in charge.

What pictures are you speaking about that Zep has posted at other sites? Why should that change how anyone reacts towards him here, the mods/admins specifically. Besides, if a picture is posted somewhere public (forums, myspace, etc), you must think the possibility that it could be used for whatever reason is likely by any random or no so random viewer.

It really shouldn't be about who someone wants or doesnt want on a forum. Everyone should be allowed no matter how much they disagree or dislike that person. That doesn't take into account the rules, etc. What I'm talking about is a general sense of hatred towards someone on a forum or elsewhere. I can't stand chipmunky for example, he's the biggest troll on this entire forum, but I don't care if he posts here, how much, etc. Doesn't matter to me at all. Not a case of kick the poster the majority hates out.

Yes, juju's TWO "Death" messages (one in PM, one posted by mineapple in a thread) is the sites business. Especially the mods/admins, which is why I messaged them about the Private one. PMs here is not the same as AIM. Of course AIM isn't part of KJ, but PMs ARE. It was clearly cyber bullying and completely uncalled for. I don't know how it was resolved, if at all, but I do know all the mods/admins were made aware of it since I did report it. Why not request an IP ban on her? Especially after she had minneapple post a similar message in public? That is what you call being bias and taking sides, Shack.

I am friends with Zep, yes, but that matters not in a situation like this. Evan and Zep on the other hand fight ALLL THE TIME. I think I've made it very clear in the past that I will disagree with a friend if I think they are wrong. I'm bringing this up though because the idea that he recently joined to troll the forum was incorrect, and that he was, in the beginning, treated as such, which was not the right idea at the time. Not saying the decisions were right, I personally think a simple warning about KJ's site rules, etc. would have been better than a temp ban, but that's just me.

I am not a troll.

And the majority of this site does not dislike or hate me.

Sorry

Popularity matters not, chip.

That is what I''m getting at with shacks "I think it's clear though that aside from you/Ev@n/harry, no-one wants the Zep of last night here again." comment.

I mean that a forum should not operate with the idea they must kick out a poster the majority dislikes.

They didn't.

Did I say they did? No.

I was refering to shack's quote basically implying it's okay to not have someone here the majority do not want around.

He didn't imply that.

Hi, Shack.

If only