Web Hosting Talk : Other Forums : WHT Announcements, Feedback and Questions : am i legal now?

[rusko]

since my attempts to get a *meaningful* response from the mod in question have been fruitless, i am posting here.

i have been given warning points for violating signature rules. my signature at the time was as follows:

---
* Rusko Enterprises LLC - Upgrade from your always-down-but-expensive dedicated host NOW!
* Peer1-NYC and NAC-OCT datacenter facilities
* Collocation, quality built-to-your-specs dedicated servers and premium reseller accounts
* 1-877-MY-RUSKO or paul [at] rusko.us
---

the 'quality built-to-your-specs dedicated servers' was cited as the violating bit. i have received no explanation as to what rule it violated specifically.

feeling like im trying to hit a urinal while pissing in the dark, i changed my sig to what it is at this time. the million shekel question is: am i legal now, o ye gods of haphazard arbitrariness?

paul

[SoftWareRevue]

I'd say; no, in all the haphazard arbitrariness I can muster.

It seems you may have had some communication problems.

moderators@ is always the best choice.

The rules state

May not contain any pricing, plan, sales, server, network, etc. details

So I'm guessing the reference is to your second line.

[rusko]

Originally posted by Dennis
I'd say; no, in all the haphazard arbitrariness I can muster.

thnks for the response.

It seems you may have had some communication problems.

appears so. starting with the fact that given a heads up and an explanation of what needed to be done, the sig would have been changed. continuing with the fact that the mod in question seemingly didnt know what was in violation, exactly. finishing with a break in communications, which has become the standard lately.

moderators@ is always the best choice.

i have not gotten a response from emailing that address for ages now. in fact, i have sent inquiries wrt haphazard/clueless moderation to that address (i still have the email, if you care) and never got a response back, the points staying where they are.

The rules stateSo I'm guessing the reference is to your second line.

those are facilities, not networks. specifically, since we offer collocation, geographical location of the facility matters. this is no different than 'telehouse manhattan' or 'our own facility in booblebrok, doohickey'. am i missing the point?

paul

[UH-Matt]

Just another example of trigger happy mods. Go with the flow Rusko and let them enjoy themselves at play

I seem to remember getting an email about 2 warning points... highly amusing stuff.

[SoftWareRevue]

I'm not sure it has as much to do with "trigger happy mods" as it does with a rule that needs some adjusting.

As I read it, you can't advertise in your signature. As written, it seems too constricting.

[rusko]

to clarify things a bit, the second line dennis is referring to read: 'Peer1-NYC and NAC-OCT datacenter facilities' before i changed my signature once again to please The Man.

paul

[SoftWareRevue]

Well, I'm sure your signature will go over well now.

If you want to use it to complain about the WebHostingTalk and it's staff, I don't think that's gonna fly.

[rusko]

Originally posted by Dennis
I'm not sure it has as much to do with "trigger happy mods" as it does with a rule that needs some adjusting.

i disagree. when a new rule of this nature is introduced, giving people a heads up is a much more reasonable approach. i was told that it was a toss up between issuing warning points and sending me a friendly PM. since this is the first time ive heard of any of this, i would think my criticism of past moderation decisions tipped the scales.

if this isnt trigger-happy moderation, why am i still seeing people breaking the same rule as well as other much more significant ones with no action by the mods?

As I read it, you can't advertise in your signature. As written, it seems too constricting.

agreed. glad to see moderator privileges do not automagically castrate one's common sense (in some cases, at least) =]

paul

[SoftWareRevue]

The rule is only a year old. Hardly new.

[rusko]

Originally posted by Dennis
Well, I'm sure your signature will go over well now.

If you want to use it to complain about the WebHostingTalk and it's staff, I don't think that's gonna fly.

its not a question of something or other flying, crawling or whatever else - moderators are not editors. they are not supposed to be, at least, although the reality may be markedly different. did i miss the rule that prohibits 'complaining about WebHostingTalk and its staff' or is there none, as of right now? should i expect one to magically appear and cause me to get further points and be barred from wht?

with that said, anyone that reads my new signature as anything other than a good humoured, witty way of expressing my disagreement with certain policies, is misconstruing my intentions. do the powers that be have a sense of humour? time will tell =]

paul

[rusko]

Originally posted by Dennis
The rule is only a year old. Hardly new.

has the 'no network', which is what you were applying to mine if i am not mistaken, been there for a year? if you recall, i used to report quite a few posts back in the day to help the mod team, so i would think it somewhat improbable that i would overlook the rule when writing my signature. all things are possible, though.

paul

[rusko]

Originally posted by rusko
its not a question of something or other flying, crawling or whatever else - moderators are not editors. they are not supposed to be, at least, although the reality may be markedly different. did i miss the rule that prohibits 'complaining about WebHostingTalk and its staff' or is there none, as of right now? should i expect one to magically appear and cause me to get further points and be barred from wht?

with that said, anyone that reads my new signature as anything other than a good humoured, witty way of expressing my disagreement with certain policies, is misconstruing my intentions. do the powers that be have a sense of humour? time will tell =]

paul

time did tell, as my signature was replaced with a lonely dot. have fun editing those who create the actual content in this community.

paul

[SoftWareRevue]

The 'no network' thing has been there a year. The rules page may have been formated to make it more noticeable. But, it's been there, at least, that long.

[rusko]

Originally posted by rusko
has the 'no network', which is what you were applying to mine if i am not mistaken, been there for a year? if you recall, i used to report quite a few posts back in the day to help the mod team, so i would think it somewhat improbable that i would overlook the rule when writing my signature. all things are possible, though.

paul

i eat my words, as the wayback machine says this was in effect at least since july 23, 2003. this has not been enforced at that time and much later, however.

paul

[UH-Matt]

.


Last editted by random trigger happy mod.