Thank You For The Warning CPalm

[OldFloridaDude]

I don't give a flying fuck about who was banned.

I don't give a flying fuck about which provider was accused of what.

For anyone reading this who has ADHD let me type it out real fucking slow for ya

Hotrix was pointed when there was NO VIOLATION.

I and others were given warnings when there was NO VIOLATION.

NO FUCKING VIOLATION
(remember that part if nothing else)

Per the rules I have asked for clarification

Per the rules hotrix has asked for clarification

But instead of getting an adult response or any kind of clarification hotrix was "unpointed" (since there was no violation in the first place) and is still asking for clarification PER THE RULES.

I asked for and am waiting for clarification PER THE RULES.

WE FOLLOWED THE RULES

THE MOD DID NOT FOLLOW THE RULES

Not that fucking hard to understand

[hotrix1]

Originally Posted by Laney Lixx

He should never have been banned until the claims were found to be true or false. This is just the same old shit.
I also have my favorites here but If ANY OTHER PROVIDER was accused this way, none of this would be happening this way and we would be toast. Y'all just prove it doesn't matter what you do as long as everyone likes fuckin you and you have enough wk's. This whole crap fest is an insult to EVERY OTHER PROVIDER in the Panhandle who follows the rules.
But it's okay. Cause we aren't as hot or as good right??
I mean, that is certainly what some of y'all keep saying with your words and actions.

Softball getting banned was more of a procedure following GL protocol than anything else, I would tend to believe. Much as I hated seeing him shut down. It was necessary for him to prove his identity in order to prove his claims.

As for the torch bearers defending the actions of the only other
provider in the Panhandle ever accused of such a grievous offense. There will always be those sheep that choose to ignore the obvious and be willing to compromise their principles for the pleasure to satisfy their baser desires. I know it sucks that so many allow the little head to prevail.

Don't worry, there's enough guys out there with a backbone left who will see thru all the manipulation and deceit that won't sell out. Those are the ones worth keeping around you anyway. There's more than just a few guys that think you're plenty hot as it is. You didn't need to break any GL's getting them to say that either.

And here's OFD, please don't make him angry:

[OldFloridaDude]

Originally Posted by hotrix1

And here's OFD, please don't make him angry:

ROFLMFAO !

[OldFloridaDude]

[Laney Lixx]

Tick tock

[dj8rocks]

Cpalmson, where you at?? You can't or won't explain your actions for giving inconsistent infraction warnings and points but you can take time to lock threads that are causing you the grief because of your knee jerk reactions to a sensitive subject?

[dearhunter]

When there is a GL13 violation in a review forum. It is appropriate to lock the review.

[OldFloridaDude]

Originally Posted by dearhunter

When there is a GL13 violation in a review forum. It is appropriate to lock the review.

Hello dearhunter,

If I may ask you since cpalm seems to be unable or unwilling to respond in a timely professional manner...

What about the questions that I requested clarification on ?

[Laney Lixx]

Oh, God Bless you DH.
Just showing up and offering guidance to us right now is absolutely priceless sweetie!!
Thank you!!

Originally Posted by dearhunter

When there is a GL13 violation in a review forum. It is appropriate to lock the review.

"#13 - In our review forums, be mindful of the 'maturity' of threads you are posting to, ie. the date of the last item posted. We ask that you refrain from posting to a review in which the last post was made 30 or more days ago. Some exceptions may apply if you are providing relevant, valuable or updated information about the provider, but as a general rule of thumb, this can best be accomplished by writing a new review.."

But darlin, wouldn't this information be considered all three, relevant, valuable, and updated??

It seems extremely convenient that nothing was said or done, then suddenly, BRILLIANT IDEA, we can use
gl#13 like a blanket to just shuffle the matter obtusely away from the public eye??

Am I alone in this thought process, though? How could it be this difficult to get a grown fella to speak with us like an adult. I mean, isn't that kinda the reason we have mods?? To help moderate discussion so that it keeps to forum guidelines and adheres to the accepted policy??

[Jjsunday]

Originally Posted by Laney Lixx

Oh, God Bless you DH.
Just showing up and offering guidance to us right now is absolutely priceless sweetie!!
Thank you!!



"#13 - In our review forums, be mindful of the 'maturity' of threads you are posting to, ie. the date of the last item posted. We ask that you refrain from posting to a review in which the last post was made 30 or more days ago. Some exceptions may apply if you are providing relevant, valuable or updated information about the provider, but as a general rule of thumb, this can best be accomplished by writing a new review.."

But darlin, wouldn't this information be considered all three, relevant, valuable, and updated??

It seems extremely convenient that nothing was said or done, then suddenly, BRILLIANT IDEA, we can use
gl#13 like a blanket to just shuffle the matter obtusely away from the public eye??

Am I alone in this thought process, though? How could it be this difficult to get a grown fella to speak with us like an adult. I mean, isn't that kinda the reason we have mods?? To help moderate discussion so that it keeps to forum guidelines and adheres to the accepted policy??

Laney I am shocked he didn't locked the three reviews the night he give out the warning's He knows to lock them if they are bumped after 30 days


Cp was right for doing it

The relevant, valuable, and updated is in interpretation it's a Gray area in the GL's and it is nothing we can talk about here so to me it's no big deal that the 3 reviews are locked.

[Laney Lixx]

Point taken. I'm tired of being the only provider who stands up when shit ain't right, despite the backlash I've received as a result. I'm frustrated defending this site to fellas I've convinced into joining eccie, as they leave totally fed up with the bs n here. And I'm definitely tired of trying to participate with the group, like i belong, when it's obvious no one gives a flying fuck what a provider even thinks.
Or maybe it's just what this provider thinks.
Whatever. why do i even try

[OldFloridaDude]

Cpalm Can't Answer Right Now....

[dearhunter]

Originally Posted by OldFloridaDude

Hello dearhunter,

If I may ask you since cpalm seems to be unable or unwilling to respond in a timely professional manner...

What about the questions that I requested clarification on ?

What were your questions, again?

Originally Posted by Laney Lixx

Oh, God Bless you DH.
Just showing up and offering guidance to us right now is absolutely priceless sweetie!!
Thank you!!



"#13 - In our review forums, be mindful of the 'maturity' of threads you are posting to, ie. the date of the last item posted. We ask that you refrain from posting to a review in which the last post was made 30 or more days ago. Some exceptions may apply if you are providing relevant, valuable or updated information about the provider, but as a general rule of thumb, this can best be accomplished by writing a new review.."

But darlin, wouldn't this information be considered all three, relevant, valuable, and updated??

It seems extremely convenient that nothing was said or done, then suddenly, BRILLIANT IDEA, we can use
gl#13 like a blanket to just shuffle the matter obtusely away from the public eye??

Am I alone in this thought process, though? How could it be this difficult to get a grown fella to speak with us like an adult. I mean, isn't that kinda the reason we have mods?? To help moderate discussion so that it keeps to forum guidelines and adheres to the accepted policy??

The appropriate way to handle it would have been an email to web support (since the existence of the new handle is a banning offense). If the fucktard did lose control of his account, there is a way to prove that quietly behind the scenes, without all of this grandstanding and drama. It would not have involved your local modtards. It would have been between the account holder and admintards. But, mdlee did not choose that route.

Setting that aside, there is a specified way to address fake reviews. It does not involve bumping the reviews. the guidelines forbid open "quacking" of reviews.

[dj8rocks]

[QUOTE=OldFloridaDude;106021381 8]Thank you for the timely response Cpalmson.

I would like to respectfully request additional clarity about a staff decision per GL#3:

"In cases where you would like to request additional clarity about a staff decision, you are free to pursue an answer in either a public forum or private means of communication. If handled publicly, post your inquiry in a respectful manner."

I was given a warning for bumping an old review when in fact I had not bumped said review. What I did do was respond to the last post in that review which was approximately 38 minutes old at the time. An action that is allowed per GL#13

"We ask that you refrain from posting to a review in which the last post was made 30 or more days ago."

Question #1) Please clarify why I was given a warning for an action that is clearly allowed per GL#13

Also I would like to respectfully request additional clarity about a staff decision that normally would be none of my business except for the fact that you publicly broached the subject in your response to my thread.

You stated that you gave points to the person who actually did bump that old review, and in fact I now see that they are banned. That person was claiming that the original review was completely fabricated and that they were the rightful owner of the account that had posted that review, and they also claimed that the original account had been hijacked by the provider who was the subject of that review.

Yet GL#13 states in part: "Some exceptions may apply if you are providing relevant, valuable or updated information about the provider"

Question #2) If you do not consider a potentially hijacked account and fabricated review involving a provider to be relevant then please clarify what your threshold is to be considered as such.

Question #3) How many moderators besides yourself are in the Panhandle section, and what are their user names ?

Some casual viewers and members might interpret the actions taken as a way to quickly stifle the discussion and uncovering of any potential wrongdoing that was brought up by the now banned user who made the initial claims of a hijacked account and falsified review, which is why I have respectfully asked for clarification

Dearhunter, thank you for interacting in this thread to attempt to clarify our questions. This is the post by OFD initially asking for clarification on his warning.

[dearhunter]

Since I am not Cpalm, the way he asked most of the questions are unanswerable from my perspective.

My response gives him the opportunity to rephrase the questions.