Reporting a mod for abuse of power?

[Lochton]

Backseat modding isn't cool.

Nor is getting infractions and unresponsive threads due to derailment.

[therealstegblob]

Nor is getting infractions and unresponsive threads due to derailment.

Let the mods moderate. Not responding to you further.

[Socialhealer]

Nor is getting infractions and unresponsive threads due to derailment.

derailing threads in supported in mmo-c, proof? i dunno thousands of threads not about politics turned into some left vs right or Trump bullshit, then no-one gets infracted time after time after time again.

but calling someone a troll, is like committing murder around here, worst thing you can do, even if they are trolling you're worse for pointing out the obvious.

OT: mods are untouchable just bend the knee to your dictator overlords.

[RobertMugabe]

Blue mods don't really give a damn about anything really. Just look at those spambots still going rampant even after getting so many suggestions as to how to deal with them.

All of the suggestions are shit though (like requiring new accounts to have a certain post count to make new threads).

The current situation is fine, because the spam will only happen like once per day and the mods can just easily delete all the threads. If they required new accounts to have a certain post count, then they would just spam in existing threads, making it harder for the mods to deal with the issue.

- - - Updated - - -

How or where do we report a moderator for blatant ongoing abuse of power? Looking over posts this mod has infracted shows a clear bias for anyone who doesn't share the same opinions as him/her. So where do we go to report this?

Probably nowhere? This is a privately-owned gaming forum where the guys running it can do whatever they want. You can get banished from this site for no reason whatsoever and that's their good right. If you don't like what the moderators are doing then this is your problem. MMOC isn't some politics platform anyways, so I dunno what you expect...

[WowClassic]

Are we talking about MoanaLisa? I got banned for "game vs game" bashing because I dared to criticise retail. Like has anyone looked in the classic forum? It's 90% people predicting doom for Classic. Game versus game arguments is the entire forum.

[Lollis]

Are we talking about MoanaLisa? I got banned for "game vs game" bashing because I dared to criticise retail. Like has anyone looked in the classic forum? It's 90% people predicting doom for Classic. Game versus game arguments is the entire forum.

No. You got banned for game vs game because it is unconstructive spam.
Your bullshit about 90% of people in the classic forum being there to predict doom is just that, absolute bullshit.
Look at your own post history, the majority of which is just shitting on retail saying how terrible it is, and you think you are somehow better than "90% of classic posters"? give me a break.

Stop breaking the rules. Stop spamming. Stop making shitty bait threads. Maybe then you won't get banned.

[Elkfingers]

Yeah, like russia and trump collusion conspiracy that had been going on for 2+ years and has been proven to be 100% false. Oh, wait, that's something you supported...

I mean you clearly haven't read the report, because it's not '100% false' at all - There was plenty of evidence, but not enough to press charges, which is an entirely different thing altogether.

Imagine being so binary in your thinking that things are either 100% TRUE or 100% FALSE. Yikes.

[TrollHunter3000]

Yeah, like russia and trump collusion conspiracy that had been going on for 2+ years and has been proven to be 100% false. Oh, wait, that's something you supported...

"if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

How does that prove it 100% false, exactly? Remember, they praised this very same report until Mueller spoke publicly about it to shut down their blatant lies.

- - - Updated - - -

Did they actually say it was 100% false? Because the last i heard, they couldn't find enough evidence showing either way (not enough showing it did happen, not enough to prove it didn't) .

Typically, unless its the court of public opinion or mmoc (or most forums), you need indisputable evidence to prove something one way or the other. At least in the USA.

They never said they didn't have enough to show it did occur. He said they simply wouldn't give their conclusion on the matter because it would be unjust to make that conclusion but then not charge him with a crime and give him his day in court. They couldn't charge him with a crime because the DoJ wouldn't let them.

It's like if a court said "this guy definitely raped people but we're not gonna charge him" If I was truly innocent and could prove it, I would want to be charged so I could be found not guilty.

- - - Updated - - -

Let's not bring that in this section.

I agree, but I also think simply infracting someone for going off topic isn't good enough when they're spreading blatant lies. They should be called out on those lies and infracted without the people calling him out also being infracted.

Shouldn't just let people spread misinformation simply because you don't want to be infracted yourself.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean you clearly haven't read the report, because it's not '100% false' at all - There was plenty of evidence, but not enough to press charges, which is an entirely different thing altogether.

Imagine being so binary in your thinking that things are either 100% TRUE or 100% FALSE. Yikes.

It's not even the case that there wasn't enough to press charges. They just literally weren't allowed to press charges. It's pretty obvious from his press conference that they had plenty to press charges. That doesn't automatically mean he was guilty though but that isn't the requirement to press charges against someone for a crime. You take them to court to prove their guilt and in some cases, that won't be possible until you start putting people on the stand.

[Itheni]

No one likes the mods here.

[WowClassic]

"if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

How does that prove it 100% false, exactly? Remember, they praised this very same report until Mueller spoke publicly about it to shut down their blatant lies.

That quote was in relation to obstruction of justice, not "Russian Collusion".

Most reasonable people consider his frustration towards the investigation entirely logical, considering the way it began and the fact he clearly did not collude in any meaningful sense. If your Presidency was being stitched up while you knew you were personally innocent would you just sit back and take it?

Any attempt to take him down for obstruction would almost certainly backfire.

[urasim]

I mean you clearly haven't read the report, because it's not '100% false' at all - There was plenty of evidence, but not enough to press charges, which is an entirely different thing altogether.

Imagine being so binary in your thinking that things are either 100% TRUE or 100% FALSE. Yikes.

There's zero evidence to russia collusion. Obstruction of justice is another story.

"if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

How does that prove it 100% false, exactly? Remember, they praised this very same report until Mueller spoke publicly about it to shut down their blatant lies.

You're so simplistic. There was two parts to the report. The russia part and the obstruction part. What you're talking about was the obstruction part. Mueller said clearly that there was zero evidence that Trump or anyone on Trump's team was colluding with the russians.

[TheramoreIsTheBomb]

sad thing is i only had to read the third word to know who you were talking about. kek.

[TrollHunter3000]

That quote was in relation to obstruction of justice, not "Russian Collusion".

Most reasonable people consider his frustration towards the investigation entirely logical, considering the way it began and the fact he clearly did not collude in any meaningful sense. If your Presidency was being stitched up while you knew you were personally innocent would you just sit back and take it?

Any attempt to take him down for obstruction would almost certainly backfire.

As far as I know, it was about Russian Collusion. They blatantly said they had plenty of evidence of obstruction so it would be weird to make the statement about obstruction.

How did he "clearly not collude"? I mean shit, he blatantly requested Russia to hack the DNC. The only defense of that is "it was a joke" but I doubt it was considering they took information from wikileaks and even set up a meeting about acquiring information from Russia.

If I knew I didn't commit a crime I wouldn't even acknowledge it. Let them do their job and come to that conclusion. I wouldn't do everything I possibly could to obstruct that investigation like he clearly did by firing people (and admitting that was the reason) and lying about things.

- - - Updated - - -

You're so simplistic. There was two parts to the report. The russia part and the obstruction part. What you're talking about was the obstruction part. Mueller said clearly that there was zero evidence that Trump or anyone on Trump's team was colluding with the russians.

That was never stated. Not once.

[WowClassic]

As far as I know, it was about Russian Collusion. They blatantly said they had plenty of evidence of obstruction so it would be weird to make the statement about obstruction.

How did he "clearly not collude"? I mean shit, he blatantly requested Russia to hack the DNC. The only defense of that is "it was a joke" but I doubt it was considering they took information from wikileaks and even set up a meeting about acquiring information from Russia.

If I knew I didn't commit a crime I wouldn't even acknowledge it. Let them do their job and come to that conclusion. I wouldn't do everything I possibly could to obstruct that investigation like he clearly did by firing people (and admitting that was the reason) and lying about things.

God damn, shows how easily misinformation spreads on the internet. Those words are paraphrased from his report, which were in the obstruction section. The bottom line finding on collusion was that they couldn't establish Trump or *any American* knowingly colluded, which is as close to exoneration as you can get.

This is why I just tune out of politics now, everyone is retarded and living in their own little bubble.

[urasim]

As far as I know, it was about Russian Collusion. They blatantly said they had plenty of evidence of obstruction so it would be weird to make the statement about obstruction.

How did he "clearly not collude"? I mean shit, he blatantly requested Russia to hack the DNC. The only defense of that is "it was a joke" but I doubt it was considering they took information from wikileaks and even set up a meeting about acquiring information from Russia.

If I knew I didn't commit a crime I wouldn't even acknowledge it. Let them do their job and come to that conclusion. I wouldn't do everything I possibly could to obstruct that investigation like he clearly did by firing people (and admitting that was the reason) and lying about things.

That was never stated. Not once.

You have no idea what you're talking about, and you clearly didn't read the report. You probably watched some radical leftist show that gave their version of the report(I'm thinking probably the young turks)... Go read the report, come back educated, and we'll continue the discussion.