Disciplinary - TheBigDrCon4800 / ConnieCommie

Summary:

Poor feedback, unnecessarily vehement, has chat record (banned), keep an eye on.

page 1 of 212next »

TheBigDrCon4800

Zyn 27 Sep 2014 23:43

User TheBigDrCon4800 recently posted very vague feedback on the drafts forums, and when called out on it, went full vehement on the author. Posts are as follows:

http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1032268/scp-2134#post-2119852

1. You mean 239
2. 6/10 could use some polishing, but otherwise pretty good.

http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1032268/scp-2134#post-2119961

You know what? I was wrong. This has little punctuation, i doubt they would let 239 use a computer/phone, you number 239 as 293 several times, when the hell is 1111, the whole "Neutralized because the foundation cannot check" idea is stupid, where the hell is "LA desert", how the hell is " red green pink blue" a color, and this articles only claim to any sort of fame is being related to 239.
The rating module does not take downvotes on yours, but if i could i would downvote it.

Given that they've already gotten banned from chat for trolling: http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-1028923/le-9gag-army#

Keep an eye on them.

Re: TheBigDrCon4800

Accelerando 04 Oct 2014 21:52

On the now deleted SCP-2993, they posted this in discussion, with the title of "Holy shit, this is bad".

No hyphen in title, horrible grammar, and the same idea as SCP-110. -1

Author pointed out that it want cool of him to say that, other members posted saying that sugar coating critique wasn't necessary. Fantem staff posted and I followed him, pointing out how the vague content of the critique didn't justify the added vehemence.

I have a screenshot of it, if needed.

Re: TheBigDrCon4800

Fantem 05 Oct 2014 17:24

Stating here that the user has made two similarly contentless posts on SCP-2049:

Not good

---

A church that kills you? -1

And also on 2929:

Reall?

---

Something that just kills you for no reason? -1

Re: TheBigDrCon4800

Eskobar 05 Oct 2014 17:29

I guess he hasn't actually been warned, has he? Recommending that immediately with escalation on next offense.

EDIT: Warned in reply to the thread in question.

EDIT EDIT: Upon complaint by Djoric, made sure a formal warning was sent via PM on the off chance that he wasn't paying attention to the responses to his posts:

I'm a moderator for the SCP Foundation wiki. You have now been observed on five different occasions (documented here) giving critique that is in violation of the spirit or actual wording of the Criticism Policy in place on the wiki, which requires you to make an explicit effort to constructively provide feedback on an article if you're going to post on its discussion board.

In other words, if you have a thought you'd like to express, make sure you actually wrap it up in some analysis of the article in question, rather than a five-to-ten word abridged summary of whatever part of the article you think is least meritorious without first explaining that feeling. You can still have those five-to-ten word thoughts, but if you aren't explicitly pointing out something in the article that needs addressing (so that the author can actually address it), don't bother posting.

Another violation of the Criticism Guide will warrant a more serious disciplinary response (i.e. removal from the site), as it will be your sixth.

—Eskobar
Moderator, SCP Foundation wiki

Last edited on 05 Oct 2014 20:40 by Eskobar Show more

Re: TheBigDrCon4800

Zyn 07 Oct 2014 02:25

On the recently-posted SCP-2767 (currently at -23), they made the comment:

I think the author should be more specific. I'm an aviation nerd, and i am on the verge of replacing "standard helicopters" with "UH-60 black hawks". Although i think the author has a good idea and fairly good grammar

EDIT: I don't understand "10 high speed Comanches". Do you mean the experimental attack choppers, or the Indians? In addition, it kinda breaks suspension of disbelief by using something that was canceled.

EDIT (Again): Finally fixed it. Just it, tough.

They also made the following changes, apparently without author permission, and left the comment "Fixed something that was bugging me":

2 standard SCP choppers —> 2 standard UH-60 Blackhawks
high speed Comanches —> Mi-24 Gunships
10 high speed Comanches with infrared detectors —> 6 Mi-24 Gunships
10 Comanches —> 6 Mi-24 Hinds
Comanches —> Hinds

Granted, I'm not an aviation nerd, and so I'm holding off on reverting the change myself. Even though it looks like the edit was made in an effort to better the piece, it seems rather dismissive of the author, who should have had a say in the edit, I feel.

Re: TheBigDrCon4800

ProcyonLotor 07 Oct 2014 02:28

Reverted edits, on the grounds that this isn't a "standardization" thing, and that Comanche helicopters are/were apparently extant (if not common), so this is just an author doing his own personal weirdness over an article.

Re: TheBigDrCon4800

Zyn 28 Oct 2014 02:12

For the record, I received a PM from a site member regarding this that mentioned:

[…] the edit was unnecessary (And frankly wrong. Aviation nerd my ass, you could learn that stuff from playing Call of Duty or something. There's no reason the Foundation, a global organization with massive amounts of resources, should be using outdated standard UH-60s and, of all things, Hinds! […] And there was no reason to change Comanches to Hinds, either, as the author clearly had a specific helo in mind and changing it made nonsense other than to satisfy whatever bad-helicopter fetish the editor had.

So yeah, if TheBigDrCon argues the edit point, there's this.

Re: TheBigDrCon4800

(account deleted) 24 Oct 2014 19:50

Made a low-content post in the soon-to-be-deleted SCP-005-J with a "this is bad and you should feel bad" title. Staffposted here.

Given the prior warning and general history of being a cockmongler, advocating a 24 or a 72 make that a 72, since homeboy doesn't understand "closed".

Last edited on 24 Oct 2014 19:59 by (account deleted) Show more

Re: TheBigDrCon4800

SoullessSingularity 24 Oct 2014 19:57

Supporting 72.

---

Living the dream, or dreaming the life?

Re: TheBigDrCon4800

Rejekyll 24 Oct 2014 19:58

For posterity. Supporting either ban.

EDIT: To be more specific, I support the ban because while they clearly made an effort to give more productive criticism, they also clearly didn't read the Criticism Policy very well nor do they seem to care very much about not being vehement.

Last edited on 24 Oct 2014 20:00 by Rejekyll Show more

Re: TheBigDrCon4800

Eskobar 24 Oct 2014 21:19

Supporting a 72-hour-ban for shitposting and ignoring staff order.

Re: TheBigDrCon4800

Zyn 24 Oct 2014 21:21

For record, here's the conversation:

Kalinin's closed staff post:

That whole "this is bad and you should feel bad" thing? That's a pretty direct violation of the part of the Criticism Policy that says "don't be an asshole".

Referred for disciplinary action.

Reply:

While i'm sorry, i did not mean it like that. it's a meme, if your wondering.

Seems like they're trying to pin blame on Kal for not "getting it". Still not cool, and not indicative of being close to a productive member. I'm down with 72 given previous infractions; will speak to an admin right now.

Re: TheBigDrCon4800

TroyL 24 Oct 2014 23:03

Banned. A member of the Disciplinary Team please notify the user.

---

"WELL FOUNDATION. YOU MADE IT SO EASY. SO VERY VERY EASY." - dimensionpotato

Re: TheBigDrCon4800

SoullessSingularity 25 Oct 2014 00:13

PM'd!

Salutations,

I'm SoullessSingularity, moderator of the SCP Foundation. This is a private message concerning your recent behavior. After review of your repeated behavior, you have been banned for a total of 72 hours. This is in response to multiple low-quality critiques you have done, as well as previous unwarranted edits to articles. In order to avoid further discipline, it is recommended that you read over our criticism policy and, if necessary, request help with the critique process from myself or another staff member. If you have any questions or concerns, please do let me know. Feel free to come back after your time is up.

SoullessSingularity

---

Living the dream, or dreaming the life?

Re: TheBigDrCon4800

ProcyonLotor 24 Oct 2014 22:01

Given user's history, I'm happy with a 72.
Also, let me state my distaste for "it's a meme" as an excuse in any capacity.

Re: TheBigDrCon4800

Devereaux 24 Oct 2014 22:31

It's a pretty lame excuse, isn't it?

I'm also in favor of a 72.

Re: TheBigDrCon4800

SoullessSingularity 27 Oct 2014 22:08

He responded:

So, I'm not trying to get out of it, but i have a few questions:
1. What unwarranted edits did i make?
2. Does my membership being revoked have to do with the ban?
With kind regards, TheBigDrCon4800

I responded with:

1. Your unwarranted edits on the now-deleted SCP-2767, replacing much of the aircraft-related terminology.

2. Yes. You can reapply once your ban is up. You are automatically removed from membership when you are banned.

If you have any further questions or concerns, I'm here for you.

Kind regards,
Soulless

---

Living the dream, or dreaming the life?

Re: TheBigDrCon4800

thedeadlymoose 28 Oct 2014 01:12

Well, the ban is… up, isn't it? (Though maybe it wasn't when they PMed you, I suppose.)

Re: TheBigDrCon4800

SoullessSingularity 29 Oct 2014 12:13

He just PM'd me to confirm.

Has it been 72 hours yet? If it has, i got timely replies to my questions about my banning, 10/10 would get banned again.

I responded with an affirmative.

---

Living the dream, or dreaming the life?

Ok Something's Up

SoullessSingularity 02 Nov 2014 01:47

Guy PM'd me letting me know he can't apply. It gives him an access denied page. I've asked him to delete the notification he was removed/banned and check his cache. It's still happening.

What happen? Anyone know?

---

Living the dream, or dreaming the life?

Re: Ok Something's Up

Zyn 02 Nov 2014 04:43

It's possible he wasn't removed from the banlist yet… would need an admin to check that.

Alternatively, clear temporary internet files and cookies for the site.

Re: Ok Something's Up

thedeadlymoose 02 Nov 2014 05:15

His ban was not removed. That was our fault — specifically, it's my fault. I removed the ban on my phone with a shoddy connection; it apparently did not successfully go through.

The ban definitely removed, now. He should be able to apply again now. My apologies to him.

Re: TheBigDrCon4800

Zyn 06 Nov 2014 04:29

And he's back at it.

http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1049330/sentient-probability-journal#post-2149678

Improvable: The grammar. For example, "One (1) of Level-2 the staff members" could be fixed. In addition, if it could "Change Fate", it should be labeled as Keter. Lastly, saying "Our good professor" Is out of tone.

Called him out on the drafts forums, told him to wait for experienced members to post first, etc. If it keeps happening, cease-and-desist (i.e. "Please hold off on giving critique from now on and stick to opinions"), then move to ban if necessary. I'm guessing they're just not aware of what they're doing here.

page 1 of 212next »