Dec 28
Support Restriction
If this blog entry is deleted (once again favoritism will strike, seeing as Nicola can talk crap in her blog all she wants), it's just because particular staff members like to hide their favoritism (like Scotty gaining favoritism over me when it comes to the code index I offered and he posted) for each other and they don't want members to know the truth. If I'm banned, it's because they can't take the truth and they don't like to hear others blunt opinions, because their opinion is all that matters.
So, why was Cory, the support whore, restricted?
Answer:
I was support restricted by the almighty Stephen for one cocky post I made in the Theme & CSS Help forum in regards to Nicola's warning (where she made assumptions and called me cocky). Well the post I got support restricted for showed her more of my cocky side. I was actually pretty truthful in the post though, seeing as Nicola's a hound dog in her Theme & CSS Help forum. Pretty sad that she had to add alt=""/ in the image tag (heck, I saw an extra quotation mark when she was using the src attribute, making it be read as empty) to one of my posts to make it XHTML valid, whereas you see tons of invalid codes all the time in the other support forums. Seriously, she owns that forum basically. Make one little mistake, you get warned.
Stephens always going around supporting his homies in any possible way he can. It's almost like he's the one sucking up to them, when it seems they'd be sucking up to him instead. If Nicola says it goes this way, by golly she'll crack her whip on Stephen and he'll obey.
Any who, the reason I was warned this time was certainly unjustified. Pretty much I got warned for referencing CSS3 that is yet to be supported in pretty much all browsers but a few. Here's the part I don't understand and where I haven't been stood corrected: I informed the user of the incompatibility of CSS3 in my post and I was still warned; which I assume Nicola just did because she hates me and likes to make silly assumptions, then turn all bad ass on me. She thought I made that post to look "cool" or because I wasn't aware of the incompatibility. I just informed the user that it will be possible to do it the way he wants to do it in the near-future; I never suggested that he use the method as Nicola and Stephen imply (and are too blind to see). The article I linked after that addendum was quite informative, by the way (and the main reason I posted).
As for being support restricted, I didn't know one post of cockiness could cause that. Why's Nicola not restricted then? Oh, yeah.
I've seen many mistakes Nicola has made in her support posts. They too are often little mistakes like mine. Does she go warning herself of have some other staff member do it for her? No, of course not. Speaking of Nicola, she's the reason so many people have left the boards she's apart of. No one can take her power abuse and everything else about her, which is basically everything she says she's not. She thinks she's like the most perfect being on the planet. So sad that she thinks that. Can't wait for her to experience a piece of reality.
I've only received warnings from Nicola, by the way. Shows how much she hates me, seeing as I post more in the areas she does not (such as the "General Support - IF" forum). Fortunately, some of the other support team members know an occasional mistake when they see one (I see them all the time from the likes of their selves; human like me). Even though this warning wasn't a mistake this time, it was Nicola over-throwing her power and hatred towards me with other staff such as Stephen agreeing with the goddess of the thrown.
Nicola thinks I'm just griping and complaining. I am partially, but for the most part I'm just tired with all that she gets away with. Her negative sides aren't looked upon at all; CSS goddess and just favoritism in general is the only reason she's still here.
Here's Nicola's PM, by the way:
http://i42.tinypic.com/jj1eud.png
-
Comment by Stephen, Dec 28 2008, 08:49 AM
I was wondering how long it would take for you to make a blog. It is sad that your behavior was so predictable. In case you're curious, it's my policy that anyone who makes something like this public has waved their right to privacy. Keep this up, and you'll find all your infractions posted right here in this blog. And you will not like what you see.
You might be interested to know I made the final call on restricting you. As you told ME you were done with support. You then chose to take a shot at Nicola rather than actually provide support. After Brian and I spoke to you, what action were you expecting? Another slap on the wrist? This has been going on since the fall and my patience has run thin. Call it favoritism if that is what you want, despite the fact I've overruled Nicola several times in the past. I make my own choices and I chose without her input, without Brian's and without Brandon's, to restrict you because you refused to improve your attitude. I have a three strike rule.
As to the Code Index. You act as though the whole thing was your idea. The first index was in fact done by Ryan. James did similar indexing to what you and Scotty did. Now, I apologized once for my mistake, but if you wish to continue to dwell on it, then I see no further need to apologize. I've never claimed to be perfect. When I made that mistake I did apologize to you. But you are the one who couldn't let it go, despite your claim otherwise back in the fall. You have a large chip on your shoulder that has only seemed to increase in the past few months and you didn't like it when Nicola took you down a peg. You created this vendetta by directly challenging her. You brought me into this when you ran to me every time she warned you.
The last message I sent you on Tuesday ended with "Otherwise, it will just cause more problems that neither you, the staff, Brian or I want."
You chose to continue creating those problems despite claiming you were done with support twice in the past.
"Since my help does lead to destruction I think it's now of my best interest to just quit this board."
"I don't want to have nothing to do with this community anymore."
Your words yes? Perhaps you were expecting me to beg you to stay? That we couldn't live without your support? That would be a lie. EVERYONE with the exception of Brandon, is replaceable. Myself, the Support team, the moderators, the members and yes even Nicola. This service can survive without them and it will survive without you.
Lastly, you asked back in early December for your warns. As I told you, you had one increase in May. Now you have 3. 3 strikes: You are out. -
Comment by Cory, Dec 28 2008, 09:26 PM
To be honest, I could care less about the restriction (I just informed the user that I couldn't support him for those reasons). The warning on the other hand was unjustified for the reasons I stated and the stance is still uncorrected. I don't like receiving something that I don't deserve, do you?
The only reason I go on about the index, is because y'all can make the correction day in and day out. Having "Originally posted by Scotty" in this topic shows him favoritism. I'd either expect y'all to give me recognition too or to give Scotty none at all. By the way, it's not about the idea at all, it's the fact that I allowed y'all to use the code index out of my own free will. It would be fair if Scotty's name is removed from that topic (or my name added for the same amount of recognition) since he's clearing gaining recognition for it and I am not. The indexes I've been creating from scratch have taken years to create and they're still not finished.
It's hard to quit offering support because I like supporting users in subjects I know a lot about. I can't do that without getting tackled down, unfortunately. Someone that has higher expectations in support (and someone that receives hatred from a particular staff member) like me gets tackled down a lot easier, other daily supporters do not. -
Comment by SlothLikeSin, Dec 28 2008, 11:28 PM
Seems the dynamic duo strikes again. I completely agree with Cory on everything he says about both Stephen and Nicola.
She is, by far, the most annoying, self-proclaimed CSS goddess/princess I've ever had the misfortune of meeting, and Stephen seems to back her every step of the way. Actually, it seems most everyone with a colored name backs her. She can be cocky, rude, ignorant, and arrogant, but whenever someone else comes along with that same tune, all hell breaks lose-- with, of course, her coming out on top.
It's sad to see that you were restricted, Cory. You offered so much support, and good support at that.
Stephen, how exactly does speaking the truth wave anyone's right to privacy? It may be biased, but with Nicola's track record, it's certainly believable. -
Comment by Cory, Dec 29 2008, 04:50 AM
That's how I kinda' think of Nicola too, SlothLikeSin, to be perfectly honest. I don't want this blog entry to turn into a "piss on Nicola and Stephen" duo though, because it's more about justification and my right to defend my opinion and have others defend theirs. However, their "ways" (just like my "ways") highly involve the circumstances we have on our front plates here.
I'm just not understanding the thoughts of Nicola and Stephen and the actions they've taken towards me, which makes me only assume they want to give me warnings or try to run me off; I already know Nicola wants to do that.
OK, so like I said, I was warned by Nicola for referencing a CSS3 method that can be used to accomplish the effect the original poster was after. Since certain CSS3 snippets have yet to be supported in most browsers, it clearly wouldn't work for an estimate of 98% users. I clearly stated that it's only supported by specific browsers at the moment and never suggested that he use the method; I only referenced it for future usage and just a general way to inform him that the way he was trying to accomplish it will be possible in the foreseeable future. My assumption is that she warned me for bringing that post to the users front plate; providing more information than Nicola posted. The browser incompatibility issue was her way of reading my post out of context and making that issue the reason I got warned. So basically, I got warned because Nicola 1.) hates me and 2.) makes assumptions that she cannot prove.
As for my first warning in May, it was something similar to browser incompatibility I think. In my opinion, my hundreds of quality support and reported posts made up for that though.
Here's the real hard thing to understand: I see some members make constant posts that contain snippets that are browser-weary, or are just completely incorrect statements. Very doubtful those users get warned and they certainly didn't get support restricted. Clearly, Nicola likes to watch those she doesn't like in hopes she can hunt down those bad quality posts over their hundreds of quality posts and warn them, and some say I like to overreact! I mean, some users make a few bad posts a day and their account or inbox is not touched. Me, on the other hand, one mistake or improper way of wording something and I get tackled down. Please tell me, what's the logic behind that? I really don't understand, so hatred or hurt feelings must be standing in the way somewhere. It's like y'all are trying to treat me what I make myself out to be, a robot!
Stephen said Nicola rarely gives out warnings and someone like Das would have likely gave me three warnings instead; now, here's the funny thing: Das was the only non-administrator I PMed about the issue and in accordance to his statement, he too thought Nicola's actions weren't fair.
Restricting me from support for a post that shouldn't have been made sounds more like something that's worth a warn instead. I mean, I informed the user I couldn't post because:- I'll get warned: Remember, I was basically warned for no reason. That might tell you something.
- I'm cocky: Nicola said that herself over the warning PM.
- My posts are taken out of context: The reason I was basically warned for no reason whatsoever.
Unfortunately, members can't give staff warnings. Otherwise, I would of warned Nicola for the invalid image tag she posted by mistake the other day. Does that sound at all familiar? - I'll get warned: Remember, I was basically warned for no reason. That might tell you something.
-
Comment by Lewis, Dec 29 2008, 05:29 AM
I think i'll quote a certain quote... "It can take 20 years to build a good reputation, and five minutes to ruin it". Now don't get me wrong, 4500 posts on a support forum is pretty impressive, considering most of those posts are support you have filled. However... I am pretty sure, no, I am definitely sure that when some people give bad support, it needles the staff a lot. So if you fill 1000 support questions and then give the wrong support 5 times and they are noticed then you will have to be apprehended because you are giving the wrong answers to support that some members might need.
You may not agree with the restriction put on your account but that's life. Life isn't fair and if it's what the staff think is best then you have to accept that. -
Comment by Cory, Dec 29 2008, 05:36 AM
Please read all blog comments, Lewis.
My support wasn't bad. It was clearly a misinterpretation, which I'm sure Nicola was fully aware of.
Also, just because something's "life" doesn't mean it cannot be corrected. -
Comment by Cory, Dec 29 2008, 05:48 AM
In fact, I didn't even get support restricted for bad support. You certainly didn't read the blog entry my friend, at least thoroughly.
I'm not trying to be rude, Lewis, but I've seen a lot of posts by you lately; every post by you always supports those in the highest position. That clearly makes me assume that you're the type that likes to suck-up; have the higher positions favor you. Please, become opinionated; speak what you truly believe.
By the way, what the staff thinks best is really limited to very few opinions, most of which turn out to be biased because they obviously support their decisions, like most people do. -
Comment by Lewis, Dec 29 2008, 06:28 AM
Sorry but I do find that rude, you were restricted because you can't give correct support. End of.
-
Comment by Cory, Dec 29 2008, 06:37 AM
Sorry if you find it rude, I was just giving my blatant honest opinion based on what I've seen these past few days.
You obviously didn't read any of the blog, though. For one, none of my support was incorrect. In fact, both warnings have been given due to browser incompatibility issues (the first one I'm not entirely certain). This warning was not justified, because I clearly gave a heads up on the browser incompatibility that the CSS would of caused. Remember, two assumed wrongdoings in support, warned. Sometimes you see multiple wrongdoings in support at one time by a particular user; they're all good.
I was support restricted because I made an unnecessary, cocky post in regards to Nicola's warning. -
Comment by Stephen, Dec 29 2008, 09:03 AM
I'll simply respond to your comment Cory:
I chose to restrict you because you took a deliberate shot at Nicola instead of providing support. It was a flip remark and you got what you deserved.
You could have instead continued the dialogue you started with me last Tuesday regarding that warn. You could have waited until today when Brian returns and speak to him if you were unhappy with speaking with me.
You chose, let me emphasize this: YOU CHOSE to make that comment in a support topic rather than provide support. You know the rules. You have been around long enough. And you also should know by now that I especially do not cut old members slack for things like that. Plenty of IRC regulars can attest to this when they have gone and acted out and received a warning or pm from myself.
So while you may have initially been right about whether that warn was deserved or not (and since Brian and I did lower it from 3 days mod approval to less than 1, you had some leeway to argue that further), you made the final call by first telling me you were done for support. And then making your snide comment in a support topic. That's on you. You had two open dialogues with both Brian and myself and you made the decision that you were going to leave support. When you chose instead to take a potshot at Nicola, I helped your decision along. -
Comment by Jonathan, Dec 29 2008, 11:12 AM
I love how you claim Nicola hates you, when all of her decisions have been fully supported by the rest of the staff. In fact, Nicola quite often asks for a second opinion before committing to warning a user.
I'm not sure how aware of your current warnings you are, but Nicola has actually only ever warned you twice. There are several notes added about your account, many of which could easily warrant a full warning, but were simply noted instead. Nicola has discussed with me on several of them at the time they were issued, and I agreed wholeheartedly with her in each case. -
Comment by Cory, Dec 29 2008, 02:32 PM
Oh it doesn't really matter know. Even Jonathan's on in this, and I thought he, out of all the staff, was the type to give a little leeway and understand that we're just human. Das has been the most considerate in my case; he's a good staff member, well opinionated too, not biased. Any staff member that states their opinion here is likely to be biased, though.
We live in a sad little world where those that have power become corrupt. Too much misunderstanding on our behalf's; stupid human flaws!
Nicola's made plenty of little post-shots at people she doesn't like. She's allowed to do that because of her colored name, I assume; and others are allowed to give bad support because the staff likes to tackle down those with higher expectations.
When y'all make mistakes, it'll just be natural and nothing will be done, of course. Sorry for the very occasional mistakes and mishaps from time-to-time, robots. I see y'all obviously want to get rid of me, so I guess it's my time to go; not due to the fact that the staff always get away with what they want, but because there's nothing more I can do because of that; that's one major flaw in the internet forum world.
If you can't see that Nicola hates me, Jonathan, then you too are blind, my friend. Yes, a lot of warning notes that equal up to human flaws or misunderstandings on my behalf. Really sorry for giving y'all slack in support by mass supporting users; I was trying to let y'all worry more about tickets, but y'all obviously like to worry about support topics too (or not have someone with quality posts answer y'alls precious little topics)
You know, Nicola started this again by giving me a warning that I didn't deserve. Instead of licking her toes, why not tackle her down too?
Have fun tossing around members like hacky sacks. -
Comment by Cory, Dec 29 2008, 02:32 PM
What's this Nicola, the 5983 member you managed to run off?
-
Comment by Will, Dec 29 2008, 02:58 PM
I'm really surprised at your behavior Cory. Before all of this drama happened I was a big-time supporter of both you and your support on the forums. In fact, I was incredibly grateful of all of the help you gave. It came to the point where I even brought your name up as a potential candidate for future staff considerations. Not once did I ever think you'd be someone causing us grief. I can only be honest when I say that I'm upset.
You've shown a great deal of immaturity and a lack of respect, not just to Nicola or Stephen but to the entire staff team. When warnings are given or when punishments are dealt it usually has the backing of most staff members. When you moan and whine about the decisions of one staff member it usually cuts the throats of 5 or 6 others.
I understand how mistakes happen, and I completely get why you're upset, but sometimes the best thing to do is to let go. Ask yourself "Is this really worth my time and energy?" If the answer to the question is yes then you should continue to fight with us, because I think you should always stand up for what you believe in. If the answer to the question is "No, it's not worth my time and energy.", then please make your peace and leave. Both choices have repercussions.
I'm not going to sit here and bash you. I still think your capacity for good overthrows these few negative qualities your showing. Call me wrong, tell me I'm following the crowd, do whatever makes you feel at ease - but please know that we're all individuals and capable of making our own decisions. I fully back up the choices of my fellow staff because I believe it's right, not because I'm afraid to speak up. -
Comment by Marta1313, Feb 1 2009, 12:03 AM
what???????
U cant help anyone anymore????
I have never had problems with u...holy rusted metal, Batman! is going on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -
Comment by GanstarMan143 (PM), Mar 19 2009, 01:45 PM
Cory,
I have had issues with Nicola before! It doesn't turn out to pretty! My suggestion Cory, is to just look at the warning and move on! I suppose I am probably on Nicola's Bad Side still since I sent a capitalized PM to Stephen a fair amount of time ago before my other account got deleted and Nicola Had To Take The Time And Create A Code! I have a fair amount of problems with some of the Support Staff too and even the Community Staff in fact! Never With You! That's Why I Kinda Agree With You For Standing Up For Yourself! I have before, and it doesn't turn out to good! You can keep going and you will probably get banned! (I Hope You Don't!) Most Likely, Something Bad Is Gonna Turn And You Are Gonna Have Something Fly At Ya And Your Gonna Lose It!
From,
GanstarMan143 (ArsenaultBJ) - Add new comment:
6:26 PM Nov 22
