Did mets get a perma from b&m?

That's difficult to process.

The universal answer is being a douche without providing a sufficient balance of being entertaining.

430K active users on this site a call bs to that, the way mods treat members is screwed up, mods on here should take a common sense test,

I'm not sure where you got that info, but this was 100% true when I posted it:

This doesn't really help anyone; do you have any constructive criticism?

What should that test comprise of ? How are mods failing it at the moment ?

One question: Are you willing to be a mod on 2+2?

lolwp

Agreed, this asshat should be banned and probably will be soon. Common sense at work.

omg he IS the test...

Say he was banned. Do you think you the reason needs to be posted or is it self evident?

Just a feeling. I asked one of these though and the feeling was confirmed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_8-Ball

From now on I'll ask the Magic 8 Ball before any modding decisions.

Professionalpoker, can you tell us please why the Dutch Boyd twitch link post was removed from the "Re: Live Streaming on Twitch" thread. Thanks.

Didn't he give the answer in his previous post?

What post?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...0&postcount=62

Ask the ball. Talk to the hand

This may be your thread of choice: about-forums/re-moderation-discussion-thread-1518049/

Ah, of course.

There are a couple posts in that thread mentioning the Boyd steam. Not aware of any that were edited or deleted by a mod. If you want to discuss his stream, go for it in that thread or start a thread in televised poker.

OIC, thanks.

spike420211

+1 We deserve an explanation for spike.

Additionally, we should be told why he was banned.

This is a guess but I'm thinking maybe his numbers was up.

ageist

This just isn't true imo. Other than spammers I never just banned people cause I felt like it or it was their first time breaking rules 3.2 section iii so BANN. And quite honestly if a mod did ban someone this way, they can expect to see a thread in here about it the next day.

Maybe someone occasionally gets 'banned for first offense' but really they made 2 offenses, 1st they broke the rules, 2nd decided to be a royal dickhead to the cop who was going to let them off with a warning.

Not saying it is right or wrong in any specific case, but it should surely be expected assuming that after you see 'profile infraction warning' (or even 10 points which really isn't excessive in a lot of cases imo) that the **** is getting real.

And as far as the OP of why a user has been banned, I think it might be helpful to have a few different banned undertiltes, particularly if someone was banned for scamming (ala DNS at ptp). Past that, I am having hard time imagining something that is both useful and not a pain in the ass to implement. In a lot of ways this works well, if someone didn't get banned for scamming you can just kinda assume they were being a dick.

+++ as well that lots of times someone gets in trouble for a lot of little stuff here or there and the 15th mod to have to deal with this like ****et, i am banning this moron who is more trouble than they are worth, despite the lack of total weight of any one specific annoying thing they did. I think most of us would agree a little more leniency should be shown to someone who contributes a lot but trolls some, and that is actually the same thing in the negative as banning someone who is a slight pain in the ass but literally brings nothing useful to the forum.

Espesh when you consider that trolling is totally subjective and ~9/10 the people (including mods) on whatever side of an argument, don't see trolls that support their views as trolls at all.