Dancing Mustard Skittles Snorri Simon Viviant

[GabonX]

Hey, anyone remember that time Delia and ladidia or whatever abused the system by having ladi play games for Delia even when Delia posted (and therefore wasn't away)? Yeah, they got a block and THAT WAS ALL!


Really consistent enforcement guys.

The problem is that you secretly infiltrated a private usergroup which you were personally barred from joining which was deemed as a gross abuse of the site. The fact that you broke the first rule of the site to do so merely compounded the issue.

[pimpdave]

Hmm.

They ban a person so that they can't communicate or play on the site..

Someone begins communicating for them...

Ya, common sense would dictate that it would be a bad idea.......

Well, let's think about the spirit of the law versus the letter here. If that communication did nothing to break the rules, then would that REALLY be an instrument of damage to the integrity of the site?

I can easily see where letting a banned person hijack your account to go flame newbies would be a common sense no-no, but passing along innocuous text from a banned person is kind of like just reading a letter sent from a friend in prison. I really fail to see how this is damaging the site.

And so, sir, we need to come to some kind of understanding of what the rules are really in place to do. Are the rules there because they are the rules (i.e. they exist merely to perpetuate the need for themselves, like insurance agents), or are the rules there to protect the integrity of the site?

If it is the former, then my head is about to explode. If it is the latter, then everyone truly must be given a "fair shake" and the fundamental question of the rules existence (and their enforcement) should be considered in any decision making process.

[Frigidus]

And now it seems that one of the people in the Fireside Tavern had whined to the mods. And you know just how trigger-happy the mods are, around here. All 4 of them permabanned for a rule that does not even exist.

Iliad, the meat of your post (from which this quote is taken) is tres good. However, you mention something here that I thought deserved a bit of expansion. First off, the last sentence quoted is erroneous, but not egregiously so. They aren't "permabanned", they are being "shaken down", or whatever it's called when the account is taken hostage and a user must pay a ransom to "free" it.

But what I want to expand here is the idea of the "trigger-happy mods". I'm not entirely sure they ARE trigger-happy, but I do get the sense that they play favorites. If the banning business is incremental and cumulative, then I should like to think that someone could work off some of those increments with time on good behavior. Think about it like points on your driver's license. Those points go away after time, if one is a good, law-abiding driver.

Here, however, it makes no difference if the previous offense was 24 hours ago, or 6 months ago, the punishment is the same. So, it hinges on the relative long-term memory of the mod levying the punishment. (Please, mods, correct me here if I misunderstand)

I think the best possible change to the site that could come from all of this, instead of further demands for clarified rules and the same old ad hominem attacks against the powers that be, is perhaps some kind of compromise on these rules and their enforcement. I would really like to see some clemency for good behavior.

I would like to see this clemency, because I am a human being, and thus I am fallible. I will probably screw up and offend someone down the line, and that helps motivate my desire for a system of clemency for all. This is the same reason why I truly believe that even the worst criminals deserve an advocate that will work his/her absolute best to provide a defense. While I wouldn't be able to defend someone like Osama bin Ladden, I still believe that he deserves the best defense his lawyer could provide. Why, you ask? Because if I was in the same position, I would really want to have at least ONE person out there going to bat for me.

This is not the same system, this is a privately owned website, not criminal justice. With that in mind, we should try to avoid making too many comparisons to the two. And why a system of incremental clemency would be a good compromise.

Now, of course, the slippery slope argument is going to get made after this post, saying that it'll just lead to people biding their time before engaging in the same antics, knowingly. And to that I say, if that turns out to be the case, then revisit the idea down the line, and modify it accordingly.

I might toss this out in Suggs & Buggs, if anyone here thinks it would fly.

It does address the problem that there is a limit to the mistakes that you make. If you broke forum rules 10 times in, say, a decade, you would be permanently banned. That seems a bit excessive to me.

[TheProwler]

Hey, anyone remember that time Delia and ladidia or whatever abused the system by having ladi play games for Delia even when Delia posted (and therefore wasn't away)? Yeah, they got a block and THAT WAS ALL!


Really consistent enforcement guys.

Each case is different.

That said, I agree that what you described seems unfair to anyone playing against laddida (posing as delia). I'm assuming laddida is a better player than delia...?

But what didn't help you snorri, I suspect, was that you were in this little conspiracy with DM. He has a long list of offenses. It put the admins in a difficult spot. DM has been such a pain in the ass for so long, they are getting sick of it (I am speculating). But what would have happened if you were given a lesser penalty than him? Who knows, but it might have been a huge outcry. Huger. You chose to go along with a plan that you must have suspected was against the rules. And you did this with a known, pathological rule-breaker. I think there might be a level of "guilty by association" in this case.

And I mean no offense to DM by calling him a "pain in the ass". I think that he likes, and would not argue, this fact.

[pimpdave]

...they planned it and did the actions over the course of a month. That's pretty clear abuse in my eyes, and it appears most of the members of the Fireside Tavern would agree.

So wait, the crime is determined by whether or not the plaintiffs agree on whether or not there was a crime? Cause that's just mob rule, my man. You can't possibly believe that's a valid reasoning behind determining whether or not damage to the integrity of the site has been perpetrated.

Theism? Does that work?

I believe that's already taken.

So is Deism. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist. Sort of Atheism-Lite, if you ask a super conservative religion nut, but more reasonable people (who have actually studied theology and read the text of the major world religions, as Jefferson did, and I guess I should mention, myself as well), would call it something closer to Unitarianism or Pantheism-Lite.

Basically, a Deist would say that there is a higher power (that whole "I see a watch so there must be a watchmaker" argument) but does not claim to know which story is the accurate description of that deity, and prefers to examine the plethora of religions and religious text out there, divining the truth from all of the various accounts by what is repeated and held in common throughout all of the religions.

This is where the idea of "universal moral law" gains credibility.

[Snorri1234]

Hey, anyone remember that time Delia and ladidia or whatever abused the system by having ladi play games for Delia even when Delia posted (and therefore wasn't away)? Yeah, they got a block and THAT WAS ALL!


Really consistent enforcement guys.

The problem is that you secretly infiltrated a private usergroup which you were personally barred from joining which was deemed as a gross abuse of the site. The fact that you broke the first rule of the site to do so merely compounded the issue.

The fact that I was banned for being a multi does however make the mods look like idiots. I never actually broke the first rule of the site according to everyone else and their mom. I know you don't like me, but this was an unjust punishment for what I actually did.

And the first part is bullshit too. I once babysitted for misterman when he was away for a week and occasionally read the Jesus Freaks forum to read some interresting stuff. There has never been a rule against that, and I don't think anyone would have minded it. If Twill wants to make it a rule now, fine, I can accept that. But he shouldn't claim the rule has always been there and ban us.

[Snorri1234]

Each case is different.

True, but when a case that in my mind (and to most people) seems less worse warrants a far worse punishment it just strikes me as stupid.

That said, I agree that what you described seems unfair to anyone playing against laddida (posing as delia). I'm assuming laddida is a better player than delia...?

I believe so.

But what didn't help you snorri, I suspect, was that you were in this little conspiracy with DM. He has a long list of offenses. It put the admins in a difficult spot. DM has been such a pain in the ass for so long, they are getting sick of it (I am speculating). But what would have happened if you were given a lesser penalty than him? Who knows, but it might have been a huge outcry. Huger. You chose to go along with a plan that you must have suspected was against the rules. And you did this with a known, pathological rule-breaker. I think there might be a level of "guilty by association" in this case.

And I mean no offense to DM by calling him a "pain in the ass". I think that he likes, and would not argue, this fact.

We did actually speculate whether this would warrant a punishment if DM's part became clear. I and Simon never thought we would get a punishment for this as we thought it wasn't against the rules. I did read the rules beforehand, as I'm not keen on getting banned, and I didn't discover anything about this being not allowed.

I mean, if I ever thought this would be illegal I would've filed an abusereport against you for reading posts from the TF forum and posting them. I thought you were allowed to do that so I just tried to search for the one who gave you access.

[Snorri1234]

Hmm.

They ban a person so that they can't communicate or play on the site..

Someone begins communicating for them...

Ya, common sense would dictate that it would be a bad idea.......

Well, let's think about the spirit of the law versus the letter here. If that communication did nothing to break the rules, then would that REALLY be an instrument of damage to the integrity of the site?

I can easily see where letting a banned person hijack your account to go flame newbies would be a common sense no-no, but passing along innocuous text from a banned person is kind of like just reading a letter sent from a friend in prison. I really fail to see how this is damaging the site.

And so, sir, we need to come to some kind of understanding of what the rules are really in place to do. Are the rules there because they are the rules (i.e. they exist merely to perpetuate the need for themselves, like insurance agents), or are the rules there to protect the integrity of the site?

If it is the former, then my head is about to explode. If it is the latter, then everyone truly must be given a "fair shake" and the fundamental question of the rules existence (and their enforcement) should be considered in any decision making process.

Indeed. In fact, this has happened quite a few times. People letting others know what someone on a ban has to say. It clears up confusion a lot.

[TheProwler]

We did actually speculate whether this would warrant a punishment if DM's part became clear. I and Simon never thought we would get a punishment for this as we thought it wasn't against the rules. I did read the rules beforehand, as I'm not keen on getting banned, and I didn't discover anything about this being not allowed.

You should have sent a PM to the admin to see if this was or wasn't against the rules if you were unsure. Live and learn.

The thing is, the rules are written to be understood by a layperson, not a lawyer. So there will be loopholes and gaps. But it is the spirit of the rules should be followed. And common sense should play a role.

I mean, if I ever thought this would be illegal I would've filed an abusereport against you for reading posts from the TF forum and posting them. I thought you were allowed to do that so I just tried to search for the one who gave you access.

Funny, several of your peers have been making reports. They defend you and DM for something you did that is obviously much more serious and wrong, all while speaking out of the other side of their mouths and asking for me to be punished.

But there are clear differences. I never logged into anyone's account but my own. Several of your members passed me PM's and private e-mail messages telling me what was being said, because it was about me. You guys were effectively "talking behind my back". Hey, I never saw the forum with my own eyes. For all I knew, the messages were not real and the whole thing was just a joke on me. That would have been fine with me. And I kept everything in Flame Wars where it's all in good fun, right? And posting PM's is cool, right? I mean, didn't your members post my PM's in your forum? What's good for the goose... You guys just need to relax. You complain about Flame Wars not being "fresh" anymore, yet I bring fresh new ideas into the forum regularly. You're all just mad because I always win.

But the simple answer is: It is not the same thing.

Back to the real topic:

Did you guys actually think you were going to prove something? "DM can be civil for a month. If he tries real hard." Seriously, anyone can act in any way, for a while, if they really try.

The way the clans are designed is that the clan leaders can accept or reject different users as members. Why can't you guys just respect the way things are? I mean, when a rule works in your benefit, you embrace it. But when it works against you, you rebel. Seriously, it is all very hypocritical.

[pimpdave]

But it is the spirit of the rules should be followed. And common sense should play a role.

So then what's your excuse?

The way the clans are designed is that the clan leaders can accept or reject different users as members. Why can't you guys just respect the way things are? I mean, when a rule works in your benefit, you embrace it. But when it works against you, you rebel. Seriously, it is all very hypocritical.

All due respect man, but I think you have like, zero credibility when it comes to any discourse on this topic.

[Neoteny]

Did you guys actually think you were going to prove something? "DM can be civil for a month. If he tries real hard." Seriously, anyone can act in any way, for a while, if they really try.

They failed to understand that. Now they do. They didn't like being proven wrong, apparently.

[TheProwler]

But it is the spirit of the rules should be followed. And common sense should play a role.

So then what's your excuse?

The way the clans are designed is that the clan leaders can accept or reject different users as members. Why can't you guys just respect the way things are? I mean, when a rule works in your benefit, you embrace it. But when it works against you, you rebel. Seriously, it is all very hypocritical.

All due respect man, but I think you have like, zero credibility when it comes to any discourse on this topic.

Haha. You seem to have a hard time separating Flame Wars from everything else.

What I said is true. Not everything's a popularity contest.

[PLAYER57832]

They can make whatever rules they wish. It would just be easier if it were clarified a bit more.

Or if they tell us they made the rule before this. This rule was never enforced prior to this. The only cases that bears some resemblance to this are of people posting under someone's else's account because they are on a ban. This was not the case here (none of us were banned) and even then people usually get a warning at first.

I understood you were warned????

Anyway, welcome back.

[TheProwler]

Did you guys actually think you were going to prove something? "DM can be civil for a month. If he tries real hard." Seriously, anyone can act in any way, for a while, if they really try.

They failed to understand that. Now they do. They didn't like being proven wrong, apparently.

Yeah, some day I'd like to experience that feeling (of being proven wrong).

[TheProwler]

They can make whatever rules they wish. It would just be easier if it were clarified a bit more.

Or if they tell us they made the rule before this. This rule was never enforced prior to this. The only cases that bears some resemblance to this are of people posting under someone's else's account because they are on a ban. This was not the case here (none of us were banned) and even then people usually get a warning at first.

I understood you were warned????

Anyway, welcome back.

Wasn't DM on a week long ban just a few weeks ago? He was, I am sure.

And didn't they say they were doing this for a month?

Just wondering....

[pimpdave]

I really can't get my arms around how someone masquerading as another to prove that they are capable and worthy of participating in an elite clan of highly intelligent discourse can possibly be worse than some douchebag reposting material that is both implicitly and explicitly defined as PRIVATE.

Dancing Mustard and Snorri never made anything of what they did public! They respected the boundary lines of the private sub-forum idea and were pulling a stunt to prove they had something valuable to contribute.

The idea of causing choas (as Night Strike referred to the actions of Snorri and Dancing Mustard) is far more applicable to TheProwler's behavior lately.

Whether or not he did anything wrong in RECEIVING the information, it's pretty clearly common sense that it is damaging the integrity of the sub forum to MAKE that information PUBLIC. I really fail to see how what Prowler has been doing is NOT an incredibly serious offense and something deserving of at least the shakedown to which the four recently accused were subjected.

And all due respect Prowler, but what you're doing is dick, and seriously deserves punishment. Knock it off.

Furthermore, it even states at the top of Flame Wars that personal information is prohibited in Flames. How is the material on a private sub forum NOT considered personal or private information?

[TheProwler]

And all due respect Prowler, but what you're doing is dick, and seriously deserves punishment. Knock it off.

And what exactly am I doing? Flaming outside of Flame Wars? Oh, that's you. Really, relax. Flame Wars is open if you want to be insulting.

[F1fth]

Haha, spirit of the law? The spirit of the laws cited in their banning was to prevent cheating.

"They have an unfair opinion of me. I'm going to prove them wrong by being as civil and respectful as I can be in a situation where their prejudices won't bar them from seeing it."

Obviously, that's the mindset of someone who wants to "cause chaos" as Night Strike put it. The only way you can justify their banning is if you argue that the spirit of the rules make no difference, only whatever the admins decide as fit. Like I said, if they're gonna make up rules, that's fine. But should at least admit it.

[pimpdave]

And all due respect Prowler, but what you're doing is dick, and seriously deserves punishment. Knock it off.

And what exactly am I doing? Flaming outside of Flame Wars? Oh, that's you. Really, relax. Flame Wars is open if you want to be insulting.

Excuse me, but I did not call you any names, I simply described your BEHAVIOR as being dick. This is not a flame. You can change your behavior. You can't change you. I didn't call you a dick. I just called your behavior as being dickish.

You can change. You have that ability. You also have the ability to cough up 25 bucks to continue acting like a dick, and I really hope you get to pay that entry fee once again.

[Nikolai]

I've always played with only my own account. I did babysit once or twice, but none of those people got banned for that. Hell, why would I use Simon's account to play games? He only has games which I could easily fit on my own account too. It's retarded to claim either me or DM ever played for someone else. Skittles! hasn't played a game for over a month and only wants to check his usergroups.

Uh... we've already established through many posts WITH MANY CAPS and much mod-flaming that the rule does, in fact, say explicitly that multiple accounts "are strictly forbidden whether or not they play in the same games." And the only way using someone else's account isn't being a "multi" is if you're babysitting for them, and there've been a number of questions recently about that. Nobody's saying you were a multi in games. That's not the point.

Prowler, he's commenting on your actions, not you. Don't go making it unnecessarily personal.

[n00blet]

Indeed. In fact, this has happened quite a few times. People letting others know what someone on a ban has to say. It clears up confusion a lot.

Snorri is back!!!!!

Dance party!!!!!




We missed you

[TheProwler]

Furthermore, it even states at the top of Flame Wars that personal information is prohibited in Flames. How is the material on a private sub forum NOT considered personal or private information?

It says personal. It doesn't say private.

When you talk about me, I think I should have the right to respond. What are you so afraid of? Just don't talk about me and things would have be cool.

You talked about me "behind my back" and I called you on it. All your crying is only sour grapes.

BTW, I've had several of my PM's posted on public and private forums and I have not cried foul.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Wait... what happened? They were banned from the CC forums as well as the FT forum? For how long?

[pimpdave]

Furthermore, it even states at the top of Flame Wars that personal information is prohibited in Flames. How is the material on a private sub forum NOT considered personal or private information?

It says personal. It doesn't say private.

When you talk about me, I think I should have the right to respond. What are you so afraid of? Just don't talk about me and things would have be cool.

You talked about me "behind my back" and I called you on it. All your crying is only sour grapes.

BTW, I've had several of my PM's posted on public and private forums and I have not cried foul.

Well for the record, dude, go back and look at that forum (since you have illicit access, apparently) and read the post I made about this very topic... It was right on the first page of that thread.

[Neoteny]

Wait... what happened? They were banned from the CC forums as well as the FT forum? For how long?

They were busted as multis. They are off until they pay. Two have been paid for already.