Posted Nov 15, 2007 11:55 am PT

LOL. I bet they thought it was a little bit offensive towards them

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 15, 2007 12:00 pm PT

Must have been deleted. I had nothing to do with it since, like you said, it's your blog and you can say whatever you want.

Although the rules don't actually state that you can say whatever you want.
In fact, the terms of use state under the General Rules section, "We reserve the right to remove, at any time and without notice, any content from the Service"
And that's what they did.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 15, 2007 12:11 pm PT

That sucks GG, and to top it off that Rragnaar guy wrote a blog in which he insulted your taste in movies. You just can't catch a break can you...

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 15, 2007 12:30 pm PT

I had nothing to do with the blog being deleted. All I can say is, why did you have to resort to this in response? This doesn't help anything for anyone, man.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 15, 2007 12:34 pm PT

And it's not retrievable from Google Cache either.

How is a blog deletable? I mean, I guess you could go too far, but really? Just complaining is too much? I better not get many reading my blog, because that's all I do.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 15, 2007 12:36 pm PT

What were your deleted blogs about?

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 15, 2007 12:36 pm PT

I cannot tell what happened. I was planning on making another response too... Oh well, maybe you'll have more luck if you repost it or send the blog post by way of messaging. I hope you do something, it was a great examination of how bad the review was.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 15, 2007 12:39 pm PT

Why can't he post this blog and say 'Gamespot deleted my blog'? I wanted to know what happened to it. Are dissenting opinions against the rules. GG contributes a lot to this website. I could see if he posted his blog in the General Games Discussion Forum, but he didn't.

This is my website of choice, and my community of choice, but stuff like this can get a little out of hand.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 15, 2007 12:39 pm PT

Well, this is very little, but this was the first blog that was deleted:
A Big Old Gamespot: What The ****?

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 15, 2007 12:40 pm PT

Uh, being that you are from London, I guess you don't know that here in *America* we don't shove socks in people's mouth and kick them in an alley, we WATERBOARD them.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 15, 2007 12:43 pm PT

If you are affected by any of the issues in this blog, please phone our No Mii Support line on 0800 800 6.0

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 15, 2007 12:46 pm PT

"Why can't he post this blog and say 'Gamespot deleted my blog'? " It's not just that, throwing around lines like "Now the Empire Strikes Back" and such isn't helping anything, as insinuations/accusations of that nature are not any sort of meaningful way of dealing with stuff like this, at all. It's similar to outright calling the moderators/admins Nazis regarding things without even listening to what the rationales would be on the issue.

• agree 1
• disagree 1
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 15, 2007 12:47 pm PT

If you have a beef with a moderation, you should go here and ask about it.
And be respectful if you want an answer.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 15, 2007 1:07 pm PT

The problem I have is that suspending GamingGeek doesn't accomplish anything that is beneficial to Gamespot. All it does is reinforce those 'us vs. them' opinions that you guys don't want us to have. I wasn't following GG's blog too closely, so I don't know how far it went, but suspending one of the best members of this community because he made a Star Wars joke just seems silly... that's my opinion, but I'm not going to fight about it.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 15, 2007 1:15 pm PT

All I can say is that it's not that simple, rragnaar. There were /several/ issues that occured in a very short timespan that caused this decision to be made.

Simply put, he wasn't suspended because of /just/ that comment, but chances are it didn't do him any good.

• agree 1
• disagree 1
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 15, 2007 1:36 pm PT

GG was suspended for being the most vocal member of a very large group. Is this like Nazi Germany now? It all seems pretty lame if you ask me. Reviews and such that he's had up for ages suddenly deleted because a few people at Gamespot were mad at his recent complaining? Like, "Oh we'll show you....delete his stuff and suspend him for speaking out against us!"

This whole thing is very close to crossing the line imo. How is this supposed to make anyone gain trust in Gamespot, or have respect for it, when you can't even voice your opinion? Personally, I didn't see anything out of line with GG's comments, he makes points and always does it in a joking around but serious kind of way. Maybe that's the problem, as it seems for several years now that this site has been forcing a very robotic personality on people, so they don't get out of line. Whatever. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if I get suspended for just writing this.

Erasing the reviews was one thing, but the blogs? That is serious BS any which way you slice it.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 15, 2007 1:43 pm PT

"GG was suspended for being the most vocal member of a very large group."

At the end of the day, he was suspended for being out of line with his critiques, more or less. Reviews were deleted for making comments that were out of line for being a User Review (such as commenting on the GS, or other reviews of a game), and the blog was viewed as being too much of a flaming blog entry directed at the editor in question.

I don't like that he got suspended at all, either, but to act like he had nothing to do with it is looking at this in too one-sided of a fashion.

• agree 1
• disagree 1
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 15, 2007 2:11 pm PT

As much as I hate to agree with Skylock , in reading recent blogs by GG the thought had occurred to me that -- by the standards of gamespot.com -- GG was pushing the envelope. I'm not surprised they did what they did, I mean GG was directing a lot of animus toward Jeff G. and gamespot in general which from what I've seen is not tolerated at all.

I think because the staff don't usually engage in conversation with the users on the site (except for Alex N) they kind of let this stuff fester and get out of control. It would be a lot more difficult for people to flame the staff if they did not seem so distant, and to a degree, fictional.

• agree 1
• disagree 0
• = +1
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 15, 2007 2:52 pm PT

Totally Aspro, I was going to make a similar observation earlier. When I had my big thread about reviews and scores, I sought out several of the staff on this site, and while Gerstmann was the only one to post in the thread, I got replies from Aaron and Alex. Alex was too busy, which I understand, but Aaron didn't want to post because he thought it would stir up people who were upset over the Ratchet review.

I suppose it is a catch 22, the readers are hostile towards the editors because they don't interact with their readers and they don't answer questions about their reviews... and the editors don't interact with us because the readers are hostile towards them.

I realize that if they were to descend from Mt. Olympus and engage in discussions, there would be people who would flame them, but that is what mods are for... and for every flamer there would be some obnoxious brown noser, but it still would be nice if Gamespot was a part of their own community. Jeff's contribution to that review thread was one of the best posts in the thread, and it made me understand where he is coming from when he reviews a game.

I suspect one of the biggest reasons you hear so many people say nice things about Alex isn't because people always agree with him, but because he doesn't seem afraid to interact with us.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 15, 2007 3:04 pm PT

One thing I think people don't quite seem clear on is the stance regarding expressing dissent towards Gamespot and its editors. It's absolutely fine to have a dissenting opinion about a review or whatever, that's completely in line with the rules and such.

However, it isn't kosher to do things like writing critiques/commentary regarding a GS review in a user review of a game. This is because it's suppose to be a review of the game, and nothing more.

It's also not cool to do something like resorting to personal attacks and insults directed at other users, and this includes the editors.

What happens frequently is when someone is passionately giving a dissenting opinion, they go from saying, "I think X is wrong about Y game, and here are some reasons why..." to "What the hell was X thinking when he reviewed Y game? What an idiot." Or something maybe less crude.

At any rate, I've told many a users about the catch-22 rragnaar mentioned before, and made it clear that I would like to see editors be more involved in the community...the point I've made, though, is that the community needs to present itself as more receptive of having the editors come in and chat without instantly hopping into attacking them with hate...or even attacking them with suck-up-itude.

As I've said before, I don't really like how this turned out, including the severity of the punishment, but there is always more to one side to the issue.

• agree 1
• disagree 1
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 15, 2007 6:58 pm PT

Ok, so we're calling the blog posts deleted for "flaming"

Again, here's one of the blogs

Where's the flaming? Where did he even mention the reviewer's name? According the ToS, "Allowed: ****" So it's not the title. The other one may well have been, I don't really remember, but this one was deleted, too.

I get a little worried when rules are enforced that I don't know about.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 15, 2007 7:32 pm PT

I'd have to agree about AlexN. I don't like a review but he took the time to respond to one of my critisms about one of his reviews. Granted his response didn't explain much but that's nto really the point! At least he took the time. I'm pretty sure he commented on GabuEx's blog on MP3 too.

I really don't see what suspending gamingeek is going to achieve though when he comes back he'll just be more annoyed won't he? All your doing is further validating his opinion of this website in a feeble attempt to teach him a lesson, and to give a message to other users.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 15, 2007 8:14 pm PT

That archived version is not the most recent version of the blog.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 15, 2007 8:19 pm PT

This is insane. Now we cant even fraternize with each other about the decaying state of this once glorious site? This place was once the promised land with its unparelled reviews and community and in the last 6 months its quickly become the opposite. Whatever the opposite of promised land would be. Unpromised land? !@#$ whatever.

Going into someones blog and suspending them for critiquing a horrible review is nazi'ish. And you moderators wonder why everyone hates you sometimes? o_0

Not speaking to you personally there either skylock, just in general. The only issue I have with you is trying to force everyone to behave like robots and not be excited/angry/happy/inert emotion here about things.

• agree 1
• disagree 0
• = +1
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 15, 2007 8:28 pm PT

GME - What happened today is /exactly/ why I try to get people to tone down the emotion. Responding to a review you don't like in ways like making user reviews that are built to critique other reviews of the game, or the final edited version of GG's blog are /not/ the right way to go about things, at all, and a lot of it comes from getting too emotionally worked up while you're writing something.

This is why I'm the way I am when I post a lot of the time, and why I try to encourage a similar mentality from others, because it simply avoids events like this from happening and spiraling out of control.

I'm trying to prevent crap like this from happening. Furthermore, it's simply not cool to toss about accusations about /why/ someone has been suspended, because, especially in this case, there's simply more to the whole matter. Critiquing a review in a blog entry or post is one thing, making personal attacks to other users/the editors (which did occur in the last edited version of GG's blog entry) is another, and simply isn't cool at all. That kind of behavior isn't allowed on the boards, and it isn't allowed in blogs, either.

Oh, and Yodariquo - That blog entry is not the same as what it turned out to be after GG edited it, like, 5 times.

• agree 1
• disagree 1
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 15, 2007 8:30 pm PT

I've been a avid supporter of this site for almost 10 years, and I am shocked at how much this site has went down hill over the last few months. I guess when GregK left the quality left him. The reviews used to be the pinnacle of the industry, but they have recently become very sloppy and inconsistent. GamingGeek has been huge contributer to the forums for few years. He always something informative and entertaining to say. This something I cant say about the current Gamespot staff. As a lurker who visits the boards multiple times a day I'm very disappointed at the decision to suspend GamingGeek. I just hope he comes back after the suspension. I know I probably wouldn't.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 15, 2007 9:05 pm PT

Was it one or two? I thought the "critique" was a separate post. If not, then that would be explanatory.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 15, 2007 9:07 pm PT

The blog that you linked to was what was edited into the blog in question after several edits, IIRC Yodariquo.

• agree 1
• disagree 1
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 15, 2007 9:49 pm PT

Yes it is unfortunate that things have turned out like this but quite honestly while I think some good-natured ribbing is fun and all and I've done it myself sometimes ie. "This game needs a chainsaw." what I've been seeing lately is just turning into being downright mean and malicious.

There is nothing wrong in disagreeing and voiceing it for reviews or other articles someone wrote but this just seemed to be getting more and more out of hand. Naturally I don't think anyone expects people to 'walk on eggshells' while disagreeing with something or someone but also there certainly isn't reason for attacking someone with insulting names and numerous tasteless references to body parts and/or bodily functions. There is a medium setting too.

This isn't a 'the man is keeping us down' issue as far as I am concerned but simply an issue while people may disagree there is still some level of respect that is expected.

• agree 1
• disagree 0
• = +1
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 15, 2007 11:03 pm PT

I should mention that my previous post wasn't meant to point just to gaminggeek and the blog posting in particular but was about postings both in the blog and on the forums in general.

I enjoy all that he brings to the forums, which is ALOT of gaming news, pics, etc. so I hope he doesn't decide to just quit coming here over this which in the grand scheme of things a suspension isn't really that big of a deal.

Again I'd just like to say that no one should say: "I want to say something about such-and-such but I won't for fear of getting penalized." just say it in a way that doesn't belittle someone else.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 16, 2007 1:23 am PT

I got to give it up to skylock, at least he is giving us the info, he is the only one with the guts to come here. I dont know how many times he edited the blog, so I dont know what I saw. I saw some jabs at the reviewer, in jest though, I dont think it was malicious at all. Did he do a direct insult or was he insulting an opinion, and the person of that said opinion got upset. Cause all I saw was critique on the opinion. For instance, "that is a stupid way to look at it", thats describing an opinion, not "he is stupid".

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 16, 2007 5:18 am PT

Yeah I was going to say the exact same thing Dvader, after scanning through all of the posts, except you beat me to it.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 16, 2007 6:09 am PT

Skylock deserves a frickin' medal for this as the truth is we don't need to explain anything about someone's moderation to other users. He came in here as a sign of good will and was still met with resistance and passive insults.

All of you guys who think that you know what exactly went on here - you don't. I consider gaminggeek a good friend on GameSpot and I think of him as a great guy who contributes a lot to this site, but that does not in any way exempt him or anyone else from following the Terms of Use (which is in full force in blogs as well, contrary to popular belief). He crossed the line and was moderated, that's all there is to it.

Thank you for your understanding.

• agree 1
• disagree 0
• = +1
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 16, 2007 6:15 am PT

Oh, teh drama!

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 16, 2007 6:15 am PT

Well as I tried to clarify in my second post was that I wasn't singling out gaminggeek as malicious or insulting but I was refering to the the whole thing in general with regards to the comments it was generating, forum posts, etc.

Anyway like I said before theres nothing wrong with criticism but from my perspective it was taken to a level that was really unnecessary and had gotten to become a bit too much in my opinion.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 16, 2007 8:23 am PT

GG is a cool dude, either way, on that I think everyone agrees.

It's kinda funny how the GGD is only slightly more active than this blog post.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 16, 2007 9:15 am PT

Yeah sorry Skylock I understand your viewpoint now. I didnt really mean anything insulting towards you I was just miffed at the apparent injustice of it all.

The blogs I seen were edited so perhaps they were worse at one point I dont know. I just hope GG comes back.

Y'know its funny as someone whos been moderated a looot more than anyone else here over his time here, I think im like 4-5 months mod free now! Im on a roll!

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 16, 2007 9:41 am PT

If I can ask...which review was it that caused this? Because if it isn't a formal reader review then Skylock's point about it being a review that has gone OT doesn't make any sense, a blog topic can be as general as you want.

As for the edits and all that, well that probably did it, I didn't see them so I'm not going to bother with that.

On a slight aside:
" as the truth is we don't need to explain anything about someone's moderation to other users."

Incorrect, you are obligated to explain all moderations within the context of the TOS (and before you point out that it's not in the TOS, nor are half or more of the potential violations of the TOS...so let's not even go there). It's a simple idea, you have to take responsibility for your actions and in order for that to work the moderations have to be transparent. I'd make a topic on it myself actually but I honestly don't think enough people care.

• agree 0
• disagree 1
• = -1
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 16, 2007 9:54 am PT

Actually, no, Articuno, we don't need to explain anything about someone's moderation to anyone except the person the moderation was applied to. We are not obligated to, and normally we aren't suppose to, discuss moderation matters regarding one user with third parties (namely, other users, like yourself), so you are in the wrong on that stance, period, and there's no arguing around it.

However, given the circumstances, I'm merely trying to help keep things more civil by giving general information about the incident, like pointing out that yes, there were user reviews that were deemed unfit due to being off topic for being a user review, which was part of the issue as far as I could tell. I wouldn't have made a point about it if it wasn't applicable to this situation.

• agree 1
• disagree 1
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 16, 2007 10:29 am PT

^ Arti. I think what Skylock is talking about it that GG posted his very funny breakdowns of GS reviews (which were originally blogs) as user reviews, which is verboten. The user reviews are not allowed to be commentary on the original GS review, just a review in and of itself.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 16, 2007 11:32 am PT

@Skylock: Sorry but I never discussed another user, there is no third party in my argument at all...there isn't even a 1st party! The point here isn't whom is being moderated, I didn't mention anything about a person, I only talked about a moderation as an abstract unit, the target of the moderation can be anonymous but my argument would still be relevant. I don't care personally what GG did. I'm more interested in the moderation and how it relates to the action, as a result no PERSON is actually involved in this moderation discussion I brought about.

The point is you are obligated to discuss moderations, who was moderated (if anyone, it could after all be a hypothetical) is totally and utterly irrelevant.

Basically, I'm saying that the moderators have to explain moderations, all moderations, to anyone, simply to make the process transparent, the people who get moderated can remain un-noted (this is especially important because if you are willing to talk about moderations outside of the user it means there is no bias against any users as well, if you won't discuss someone else's moderations even abstractly then I'm gonna have to raise an eyebrow).

Oh and please refrain from dooring slamming techniques like saying "so you are in the wrong on that stance, period, and there's no arguing around it.", there is room for argument so long as I can think of valid arguments and you are certainly in no position to tell me I've run out of arguments, I'll tell you when that happens. You should know this by now, but if you ignore your interlocutor, you'll find they don't argue back very well...

• agree 0
• disagree 1
• = -1
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 16, 2007 11:53 am PT

A moderation is between the mod/admin team and the moderated user. We are not obligated to discuss it with anyone else. I thought I was very clear about that and so was Skylock. Actually, we are not obligated to explain moderations, period. Even Ask the Mods! is a completely voluntary act on behalf of the mod team to help out users who are confused/uncertain about their moderations.

From the Terms of Use: Messages and topics may be removed at any time and for any reason at the sole discretion of our editors and designated moderators. User accounts may be warned, suspended, or revoked at any time and for any reason at the sole discretion of our editors and our designated moderators. All determinations of what is "acceptable" and "unacceptable" content will be determined solely by our editors and moderators.

There's nothing there about our obligation to explain anything to anyone. We do it as an act of good will.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 16, 2007 12:04 pm PT

For the record, I'm not entirely sure I agree with suspending someone for 7 days over something as trivial as making a few jabs at a review or three. People do that all the time. From what I can gather, GG messed up by making it a smidge personal, and that does indeed cross the line a bit. Just as we users wouldn't like to be embarrassed by one of the reviewers for our stance on a game, they shouldn't have to either. Besides, reviews are simply opinions, so people can try to shout over each other as much as they want, it still comes down to "my favorite color is blue" and "blue's a crappy color, red's way better." I will say this. I've had run-ins with GG in the past, and he and I haven't always seen eye to eye on things, but I do consider him a friend, and he brings a lot to the forums. I also admire his passion for games, which is something I can't say for just anyone. I would definitely like to see him continue on as poster here, assuming he's willing to keep things from becoming personal about reviewers.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 16, 2007 1:59 pm PT

I don't know exactly what's going on here - as I'm *shock* recovering from a late night - but this is the internet... it's not all pretty, no matter where you are on it, or what the ToS says. If you put something on here, or anywhere else on the internet, fact, fiction, opinion or otherwise, someone is going to call you out on it. I may have only seen GGs blogs after he edited them, but to me, I saw nothing malicious in them.. if there was before, then he must have realized it himself, hence the 5+ edits or whatever. They were purely for purposes of entertainment, and we all poke and jab at each other around here. It's jest - if you take it more seriously than that, or worse, taking things personally - then you're probably reading too far into it. The internet is NOT the place to be if you get emotional about what someone says about something you wrote. GG found humor in pointing out contradictions in a few GS Reviews, and we all had a laugh, and some of us even stole his idea and had some fun with it. I myself am guilty of borrowing the recurring title of his review breakdowns to throw a little jab his way. Again, I obviously don't have the full story, even if I did, I'd still back my friend, regardless - which seems to be the general tone here. That said, I see where the mods are coming from, since they DO have the full story, and must remain impartial and do their job..... and thats all good and well - I think the punishment is on the heavy handed side, and I hope that if GG comes back, it won't deter him from posting, since he does contribute quite a bit.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 16, 2007 3:06 pm PT

So when a moderator suspends someone, they are supposed to tell said person why they were suspended? Because the one time I was suspended ( which was a complete joke ) I never found out who did it or why they had no sense of humor.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 16, 2007 3:21 pm PT

I can't claim to know GG that much, mainly because I've been around for much less time than many of the posters in here. Nevertheless, I can say without a doubt that he is one of my best friends in here, and I'm quite shocked and worried about the way things turned out with this particular issue (I don't even know all the facts). I can understand that he might be disappointed with the way some reviews have turned out in here lately. That's no secret, many users have voiced their concern about the quality of a feature that was one of the things that attracted them to join this site in the first place. The thing is that you have to be really careful when voicing your opinion in such a passionate way. Because GG is so passionate about the games he loves and their reviews, I can understand how things went out of hand this time. I'm really sorry that things ended this way, but I guess I understand (or try to) both sides of the matter. I'm sure we all want him to be back after this. I know I do. Not because of the news, or threads or whatever, but because this site is a better place with him around.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 16, 2007 3:34 pm PT

GG is reading this so, whats up GG!!

I dont know what to say that hasnt been said, if the best the TOS can do is state "Messages and topics may be removed at any time and for any reason at the sole discretion of our editors and designated moderators" then I have no clue what can be said or not be said. We know there is a line, we are not dumb, I do feel GG was coming close yes but I do know he was not really malicious, and I think everyone that visits his blog knows that. Its GS site so as that TOS clearly states they can do whatever they like, but i wont like it. Nothing against the my mod friends, you guys are doing your job, this clearly came from higher up.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 16, 2007 6:44 pm PT

Aza, the 'why' comes in the form of an automated PM stating what rule did a user break. If you are still uncertain as to what you did wrong, you're welcome to make a post about it in Ask the Mods.

dvader, the Terms of Use explains each infraction in a detailed manner. The part of the Terms of Use I posted was simply to illustrate that the mods/admins don't really have to explain anything to anyone. It shouldn't be viewed as some kind of a threat or to be afraid of posting, it's simply a right GameSpot reserves. There is no freedom of speech here, this is a privately owned website and the owners make up the rules that are to be implemented and enforced as fairly as possible. We are all obligated to abide by those rules and we all agreed to it as we signed up to this site.

As for gaminggeek coming back after his suspension, I certainly hope that he does exactly that. To be completely honest, I don't know why he wouldn't come back. I think this is being made into a bigger deal than it really is.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment