upola wrote on 09.09.2024 at 10:08: Everyone is equal, only some are more equal.
A few days ago a post of mine was deleted, although it contained neither an insult nor a provocation, it was just the truth. Apparently, however, some users didn't like the post
A newbie had created a thread and expressed a problem and Upola had replied to it and this post was subsequently reported by the community.
""Has no money for a lawyer, he's just a poor pensioner. The money is just enough for regular gambling.""
I classified this post as a provocation and deleted it. I agreed with the message, so to speak.
But in the same breath I also informed him via Communicator why and why the post was deleted.
Honestly, patzi and frapi you both are mega unsympathetic, patizi where I was in a group with you, I noticed that, you feel here as if you are the top macker with a plan, you should be banned and frapi always makes a gj employee here who has no idea about anything but pretends to know everything, you are just embarrassing, you should be banned just like that, you have provoked me often enough and Babelst only garbage, thought you have little time? You can see how little time you have 🤣🤣
Julian banning the guys because of that is really mega shit, had my problems with both of them but would never have demanded that they be banned like patizi
R3hab wrote on 09.09.2024 at 14:17: Honestly, patzi and frapi you both are mega unsympathetic, patizi where I was in a group with you, I noticed that, you feel here as if you are the top macker with a plan, you think you should be banned and frapi always makes a gj employee here who has no idea about anything but pretends to know everything, you are just embarrassing, you should be banned just like that, you have provoked me often enough and only babelst garbage, thought you have little time? You can see how little time you have 🤣🤣
Julian banning the guys because of that is really mega shit, had my problems with both of them too but would never have demanded that they be banned, like patizi
You don't seem to understand it either, do you? The two were already so far gone that they had a temp. ban in the past. So it was the highest preliminary stage to a direct ban. Plus a few admonishments. It's not just about yesterday. So much had already happened before yesterday. But we can look at how many warnings I've had in 6 years and how many of them. I think there was one serious warning a few years ago, that was it. I haven't had a temp. ban yet either. It is absolutely disproportionate if I would be banned. Please judge the whole time and not just one thing. I could also show you chat histories where I was repeatedly banned. It was clear that I would burst at some point after being approached, I don't know, 5-10 times. Do you even know what triggered me yesterday? The way you write, I think I do. I'm curious to see what you think.
You know about the group yourself, you hardly participated at all. And you're angry with me because I said so. More participation = no discussion about it. It worked for the others too. Incidentally, it wasn't just me at the time.
By the way, your last sentence shows that you really didn't understand. But I'm happy to repeat myself, the ban isn't specifically because of yesterday. Of course the barrel overflowed yesterday, but it was a series of misconduct that led to it.
I would never have thought it possible that the decision with the 4 moderators would have such consequences.
However, all of them (I'll leave Andre out of this) have stayed out of this discussion so far, which might not have been the case if they were still "normal" members. Therefore, the objection raised by Falke, Blubbo etc. is apparently not completely unfounded after all.
slotliebe89 wrote on 09.09.2024 at 14:43: I would never have thought it possible that the decision with the 4 moderators would have such consequences.
However, everyone (I'll leave Andre out of this) has stayed out of this discussion so far, which might not have been the case if they were still "normal" members. Therefore, the objection raised by Falke, Blubbo etc. is apparently not completely out of thin air after all.
What were they supposed to say? And if I'm not mistaken, they even wrote something about it at the beginning
What should they have said? And if I'm not mistaken, they even wrote something about it at the beginning
They certainly have an opinion on what happened yesterday and I'm convinced that they would have expressed their opinion if they weren't mods. But I could be wrong.
Maybe you should change the moderators after 1,2 months and let others who want to do it. Open a thread beforehand where everyone can post their interest. Just a thought. How many would want to do it anyway? 10,20,30,40? It would be interesting to know
That way, everyone who wants to play moderator would get something out of it
slotliebe89 wrote on 09.09.2024 at 14:43: I would never have thought it possible that the decision with the 4 moderators would have such consequences.
However, everyone (I'll leave Andre out of this) has stayed out of this discussion so far, which might not have been the case if they were still "normal" members. Therefore, the objection raised by Falke, Blubbo etc. is apparently not completely out of thin air after all.
I would never have thought that possible. For us "assistant re-moderators", there was no immediate reason to interfere at the moment when members complained to the company management about the procedure/selection etc. At least I didn't see any. At least I didn't see any, which was also intended to de-escalate the situation. The fact that the situation gradually got more and more out of hand is of course extremely regrettable, but it happened even though we stayed out of it. I'm no clairvoyant, but I suspect it would have gotten a lot rougher if we, as newcomers, had been involved. The start was supposed to be calm and peaceful for everyone and even if that wasn't necessarily to be expected, adding fuel to the fire probably wouldn't have been a good idea.
Chatterbox
Nobody has liked this post so far
What did you write?
This post has been translated automatically
Chatterbox
Liked this post: Donnie, Patizi
I can answer for him and explain the situation:
A newbie had created a thread and expressed a problem and Upola had replied to it and this post was subsequently reported by the community.
""Has no money for a lawyer, he's just a poor pensioner. The money is just enough for regular gambling.""
I classified this post as a provocation and deleted it. I agreed with the message, so to speak.
But in the same breath I also informed him via Communicator why and why the post was deleted.
This post has been translated automatically
Chatterbox
Nobody has liked this post so far
That's why I can still tell you here, especially since I didn't agree with it,
This post has been translated automatically
Chatterbox
Liked this post: Falke, gagapapamama, Nik89
Julian banning the guys because of that is really mega shit, had my problems with both of them but would never have demanded that they be banned like patizi
This post has been translated automatically
Chatterbox
Nobody has liked this post so far
You don't seem to understand it either, do you? The two were already so far gone that they had a temp. ban in the past. So it was the highest preliminary stage to a direct ban. Plus a few admonishments. It's not just about yesterday. So much had already happened before yesterday. But we can look at how many warnings I've had in 6 years and how many of them. I think there was one serious warning a few years ago, that was it. I haven't had a temp. ban yet either. It is absolutely disproportionate if I would be banned. Please judge the whole time and not just one thing. I could also show you chat histories where I was repeatedly banned. It was clear that I would burst at some point after being approached, I don't know, 5-10 times. Do you even know what triggered me yesterday? The way you write, I think I do. I'm curious to see what you think.
You know about the group yourself, you hardly participated at all. And you're angry with me because I said so. More participation = no discussion about it. It worked for the others too. Incidentally, it wasn't just me at the time.
By the way, your last sentence shows that you really didn't understand. But I'm happy to repeat myself, the ban isn't specifically because of yesterday. Of course the barrel overflowed yesterday, but it was a series of misconduct that led to it.
This post has been translated automatically
Chatterbox
Liked this post: gagapapamama
However, all of them (I'll leave Andre out of this) have stayed out of this discussion so far, which might not have been the case if they were still "normal" members. Therefore, the objection raised by Falke, Blubbo etc. is apparently not completely unfounded after all.
This post has been translated automatically
Chatterbox
Nobody has liked this post so far
What were they supposed to say? And if I'm not mistaken, they even wrote something about it at the beginning
This post has been translated automatically
Chatterbox
Nobody has liked this post so far
They certainly have an opinion on what happened yesterday and I'm convinced that they would have expressed their opinion if they weren't mods. But I could be wrong.
This post has been translated automatically
Chatterbox
Nobody has liked this post so far
That way, everyone who wants to play moderator would get something out of it
This post has been translated automatically
Chatterbox
Liked this post: frapi07, gamble1, Saphira
I would never have thought that possible. For us "assistant re-moderators", there was no immediate reason to interfere at the moment when members complained to the company management about the procedure/selection etc. At least I didn't see any. At least I didn't see any, which was also intended to de-escalate the situation. The fact that the situation gradually got more and more out of hand is of course extremely regrettable, but it happened even though we stayed out of it. I'm no clairvoyant, but I suspect it would have gotten a lot rougher if we, as newcomers, had been involved. The start was supposed to be calm and peaceful for everyone and even if that wasn't necessarily to be expected, adding fuel to the fire probably wouldn't have been a good idea.
This post has been translated automatically