Thank You For The Warning CPalm

I shall forevermore walk the straight and narrow, and be a pillar of society thanks to your timely intervention into my wanton ways.


May God Bless You Fine Sir.

Don't feel pregnant all alone bro, I got a warning too for bumping a review. Which I did not bump, merely replied on after it was bumped. But hey, only 2 warnings since my join date, I guess it makes sure we strictly adhere to the mindset and not so much the guidelines.

Yes, my heinous crime was similar, I responded to a 38 minute old post.

I am now forever indebted to the mod for showing me the error of my ways, for he has turned me from darkness and shown me the path to enlightenment

It was only a warning. I gave points to the person who bumped originally and warned those who followed. Bumping an old review is a big no-no. Reviews are intended to be current. If there is new info, start a new thread in the coed session or write a new review. There is nothing more frustrating than opening what you think is a new review only to find out it is over a year old.

Understood, but GL #13 does allow room for bumping a review if pertinent or relevant information about a provider comes up. In this case, with the allegations of a provider having control of a hobbiest's account and writing fake reviews on said account, it would have been impossible to write a new review. I'm supposing that the mods are doing their due diligence and are investigating the allegation made ?

Another one of Cp's attempt to keep us in the dark? I got a warning too after responding to Softball69. Now the intimidating tactics, after someone goes after the truth of the matter. No wonder people think twice about joining this community because of a modtard having a power trip whenever there's a dispute. Point and hide.

Now explain GL#13 to the rest of us tards here CP. Is it arbitrary for the modtard to decide what is pertinent and relevant to the reviews in question? We will not be silenced by your intimidation CP. We're tired of this kind of hit and run moderation. Stay and explain the reasoning behind these warnings and the reason(I would have to assume) for Softball getting points. Is this going to become another revolt?

The reason to have GL#13 is so some fucktard can't just keep bumping reviews for his fave honey. How did calling out a review by the person, whose handle was hijacked to write that fake review, be considered a BUMP? Do you think that if Softball69 wrote a "NEW" review without seeing VInk, that it would be allowed to be attached to her list of reviews?

Gentlemen, we need to campaign to our admins about the kind of moderation without disclosure we've been experiencing here in the Panhandle? I don't think that they would choose to be unresponsive if we all get together and PM these coercive tactics by our Modtard to them.

Start with this thread. Don't put up with it. dearhunter has already been informed. But I am not the only voice in here. Let yours be heard too. Go to the bottom of each page and there's a "contact us" button to contact your admins if you feel that there's something wrong with this picture. That's why that button is there.

Yes, my heinous crime was similar, I responded to a 38 minute old post.

I am now forever indebted to the mod for showing me the error of my ways, for he has turned me from darkness and shown me the path to enlightenment Originally Posted by OldFloridaDude

What did the path look like OFD? Did Cp shine a light up your ass for your enlightenment?

Man, that could save so much money in colonoscopies. Hope he didn't pick polyps thinking they were mushrooms though.

What did the path look like OFD? Did Cp shine a light up your ass for your enlightenment?

Man, that could save so much money in colonoscopies. Hope he didn't pick polyps thinking they were mushrooms though. Originally Posted by hotrix1

Might have been a light... might have been blowing smoke.

We shall see....

#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

Cp your warnings Crack me Up...........

Here Cp is making up his own rules again.

I posted the GL and it said you don't post if the last post was no older then 30 days. so all those warning are Bull shit again Cp..............

I posted the GL and it said you don't post if the last post was no older then 30 days. so all those warning are Bull shit again Cp.............. Originally Posted by Jjsunday

It was only a warning. I gave points to the person who bumped originally and warned those who followed. Bumping an old review is a big no-no. Reviews are intended to be current. If there is new info, start a new thread in the coed session or write a new review. There is nothing more frustrating than opening what you think is a new review only to find out it is over a year old. Originally Posted by Cpalmson

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.

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. Originally Posted by OldFloridaDude

I am in the exact same situation as OFD. I actually re-read GL #13 before I commented in the thread that had been bumped as I felt it was justified according to the GL. I was warned for bumping an old thread, I did not bump the thread, only commented very shortly afterwards.

I did try to handle this in private thru a pm to Cpalmson, which he has yet to respond to.

I would like to add another question to OFD's post for my clarification along with the explanation to the questions he already asked.

Question 4
How many other times has a Mod in Florida, or any other state pointed a member for bumping an old review? I see reviews bumped quite often across the boards. And also, how many other times have members been warned for commenting in a bumped review ?

What I am observing is misplaced and misguided applications of infractions to members based on personal opinion of a moderator in attempts to squelch the conversation that is going on at the time. I understand mistakes happen, we all make them, but this has seemed to the norm in the Panhandle forums for over a year now. Selective use of infractions to members in the past while looking over others has led to a hostile environment in the Panhandle forums. Making it to where members are afraid to step out into view and make comments that do not align with the particular mindset of a moderator. This to me is an unhealthy environment for hobbiest and providers as well..... But I guess that would depend on who you are and who you are banging at the time.

This is considered my official request for clarification on the warning I received for bumping a thread.

There's 3 local mods. gman44, rrabbit6926 and Cpalmson. And lately, a few admins have been in the background watching that also have the authority to point and ban.

Softball69 was banned most likely because of having multiple handles, of which I believe is not of his own choice. Hopefully he will be allowed to clear his reputation by his contacting websupport to clear it up. I for one, would like to hear what he has to say about our VI's doings behind the scenes that's got him in trouble to begin with.

With all the things she got caught with and now someone with some possible info on her meteoric rise into the scene by the use of illegal means, it would be less than forthcoming for the staff to disallow Softball69 his "day in court", so to speak.

Liberate the Panhandle from Tyranny! Free Softball69!

Free Softball!!