Dancing Mustard Skittles Snorri Simon Viviant

[TheProwler]

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.

I can tell you my personal opinion. I think the punishment was quite severe. Especially for the 3 users other than DM (because of his past and the frequent headaches he causes for the admin).

But I also know there are probably a lot of details that I don't know. And I know that there is a lot of hypocrisy running rampant. Like heavycola crying out against whoever reported them. I would be willing to bet that DM files more reports than anyone else here. So it is pretty hard to protest against the decision when I don't know the facts. And joining a protest when so many of the protesters are being unreasonable is not appealing either.

[TheProwler]

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.

Short term memory loss?

than some douchebag reposting material that is both implicitly and explicitly defined as PRIVATE.

You called me a douchebag. There is no question who you meant.

And the invite is always open for you to take it to Flame Wars.

[Ditocoaf]

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

Yeah, apparently an e-ticket was sent in, and they were busted as multi's. So they're, for all intents and purposes, permabanned from the forums, until they pay $25.


By the way, everyone... I didn't intend this to become just a duplicate of the other threads.

[Snorri1234]

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.

I was never warned for this. Sure, I had a couple of warnings for making jokes in a few "serious" threads but none about this. And Simon and Skittles haven't received a warning ever.

[pimpdave]

than some douchebag reposting material that is both implicitly and explicitly defined as PRIVATE.

You called me a douchebag. There is no question who you meant.

And the invite is always open for you to take it to Flame Wars.

Jesus Christ dude. Take some deep breaths... The world only revolves around you on Mondays Wednesdays and Fridays... but this is a Tuesday. So not EVERYTHING is directed at you. In fact, you could save face by just ignoring it, instead, you have to be hypersensitive. Look, I know you're trolling, but I'm not flaming.

So knock it off, cause I have just as valid a complaint about you trolling as you do about me "flaming". I'm not going to report you for trolling on this clear cut case of you being hypersensitive and interpreting everything through some "oh poor me" glasses. Just like I wouldn't talk shit about you behind your back in the TF clan you willfully infiltrated for NO OTHER REASON than to cause chaos and damage to the integrity of the website.

Shame on you, sir.

[TheProwler]

than some douchebag reposting material that is both implicitly and explicitly defined as PRIVATE.

You called me a douchebag. There is no question who you meant.

And the invite is always open for you to take it to Flame Wars.

Jesus Christ dude. Take some deep breaths... The world only revolves around you on Mondays Wednesdays and Fridays... but this is a Tuesday. So not EVERYTHING is directed at you. In fact, you could save face by just ignoring it, instead, you have to be hypersensitive. Look, I know you're trolling, but I'm not flaming.

So knock it off, cause I have just as valid a complaint about you trolling as you do about me "flaming". I'm not going to report you for trolling on this clear cut case of you being hypersensitive and interpreting everything through some "oh poor me" glasses. Just like I wouldn't talk shit about you behind your back in the TF clan you willfully infiltrated for NO OTHER REASON than to cause chaos and damage the integrity of the website.

Shame on you, sir.

Haha, I assure you, I am very calm. I am not the one making this about me. You are.

I asked you what you meant when you said "what you are doing is dick". And I gently reminded you that you should bite your tongue when feeling the need to flame. I didn't point out the flame because I didn't want to make it a bigger deal than it is. The flame was calling me a douchebag. You should probably just drop it.

I still don't know what you meant when you said "what you are doing is dick". What is it that I'm doing? I asked that the first time and you got all defensive about flaming me. And you ignored the question.

You keep bring up the TF clan. You just did it again.

Quit trying to hijack this thread. It is about DM and his crew.

Oh, and I'd suggest using "Shame on you" only when it is appropriate.

[PLAYER57832]

But I also know there are probably a lot of details that I don't know. And I know that there is a lot of hypocrisy running rampant. Like heavycola crying out against whoever reported them. I would be willing to bet that DM files more reports than anyone else here. So it is pretty hard to protest against the decision when I don't know the facts. And joining a protest when so many of the protesters are being unreasonable is not appealing either.

I agree.

So far, it seems we have 2 real issues and perhaps (only perhaps) another.

The first is whether the rules are clear enough. I would say no ... and that the fix is pretty simple, just add a few words. (using someone else's account for ANY purpose, including forum posting is against the rules. The ONLY exception is allowing someone else to take your turns when you will be gone, ("babysitting") with approval.

[OnlyAmbrose]

While I think a permaban may be a little harsh, it's not my call. Nonetheless I think punishment is appropriate, and I don't think it's necessary to spell out a rule in order to support that.

My opinion on this whole thing is basically as follows:

FT is a private forum. Logging in under someone else's account violates the privacy of that forum, and that is clearly an offense.

Distaste at FT's leadership does NOT justify a violation of a private forum's privacy.

That's my opinion in as few words as possible.

[pimpdave]

While I think a permaban may be a little harsh, it's not my call. Nonetheless I think punishment is appropriate, and I don't think it's necessary to spell out a rule in order to support that.

My opinion on this whole thing is basically as follows:

FT is a private forum. Logging in under someone else's account violates the privacy of that forum, and that is clearly an offense.

Distaste at FT's leadership does NOT justify a violation of a private forum's privacy.

That's my opinion in as few words as possible.

Then sir, I'm confident you can see how the outlaw running roughshod over that same principle, and with VASTLY less virtuous motivation, is an example of the uneven and outrageous enforcement of the rules.

While I agree that it is violating to an extent, what Snorri and DM did, they did not take ANYTHING from your private sub-forum and use it in the public realm, did they? They maintained that sanctity because they had a purpose in mind, one of earning the ability to contribute to your sub-forum.

However, the reposting of material in the public sphere would have been an attempt to COMPLETELY undermine the integrity of your sub-forum, something they did not do, but which others on these fora have done, and continue to do without any recourse whatsoever.

If you can agree with me on these points, then we agree completely. Intent does matter.

[jonesthecurl]

But I also know there are probably a lot of details that I don't know. And I know that there is a lot of hypocrisy running rampant. Like heavycola crying out against whoever reported them. I would be willing to bet that DM files more reports than anyone else here. So it is pretty hard to protest against the decision when I don't know the facts. And joining a protest when so many of the protesters are being unreasonable is not appealing either.

I agree.

So far, it seems we have 2 real issues and perhaps (only perhaps) another.

The first is whether the rules are clear enough. I would say no ... and that the fix is pretty simple, just add a few words. (using someone else's account for ANY purpose, including forum posting is against the rules. The ONLY exception is allowing someone else to take your turns when you will be gone, ("babysitting") with approval.

I think the main issue is that if it's as big an offense to post in disguise (as a legit member, on another legit member's account) as it is to set up multiple accounts to cheat in games, then his should have been more obvious.

See my posts about DaGip's thread, which was totally ignored by all rulesmongers.

Reading what the rules say, I would NOT get that. Nor did the people who did it. Nor, I submit, would any reasonable human being.

It might be different if these guys'd gone into the forum in disguise and acted badly, swearing, flingin insults and trolling shamelessly. But they did not (as the tale is told). Nobody realised what had been going on until they pulled off thier rubber masks and revealed that they'd really been Sherlock Holmes and Simon Templar, masters of disguise, all along. It was at that point that the people who had been duped protested. not because of anything they'd said or done other than actually being there and talking.

[jonesthecurl]

Oh, and Snorri, don't quote the post where you were quoted wile banned, or the entire forum will implode in a rules paradox.

[mpjh]

I still think snorri's defense would be better in Danish. For sure, the admins would understand it just a well.

Anyone heard from DM?

[Snorri1234]

But I also know there are probably a lot of details that I don't know. And I know that there is a lot of hypocrisy running rampant. Like heavycola crying out against whoever reported them. I would be willing to bet that DM files more reports than anyone else here. So it is pretty hard to protest against the decision when I don't know the facts. And joining a protest when so many of the protesters are being unreasonable is not appealing either.

I agree.

So far, it seems we have 2 real issues and perhaps (only perhaps) another.

The first is whether the rules are clear enough. I would say no ... and that the fix is pretty simple, just add a few words. (using someone else's account for ANY purpose, including forum posting is against the rules. The ONLY exception is allowing someone else to take your turns when you will be gone, ("babysitting") with approval.

I think the main issue is that if it's as big an offense to post in disguise (as a legit member, on another legit member's account) as it is to set up multiple accounts to cheat in games, then his should have been more obvious.

See my posts about DaGip's thread, which was totally ignored by all rulesmongers.

Reading what the rules say, I would NOT get that. Nor did the people who did it. Nor, I submit, would any reasonable human being.

It might be different if these guys'd gone into the forum in disguise and acted badly, swearing, flingin insults and trolling shamelessly. But they did not (as the tale is told). Nobody realised what had been going on until they pulled off thier rubber masks and revealed that they'd really been Sherlock Holmes and Simon Templar, masters of disguise, all along. It was at that point that the people who had been duped protested. not because of anything they'd said or done other than actually being there and talking.

I completely agree. None of us saw anything bad in it. And it wasn't just us four who knew it, it was almost everyone in the GH. Nobody got from the rules that it wasn't allowed. Why would we do it if we knew it wasn't allowed, or even suspected it?


And the entire point was not to cause chaos. Our entire point was not to ruin the subforum, but show them that we could behave as well as them. If they didn't want us in the forum after that, so be it. But to claim we broke rules or attacked the integrity of their forums is silly.

[Snorri1234]

I can do five, though I don't know much about the gifting process, so I don't know if doing it piecemeal like this is possible.

X ($50!)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O Neo
O Dito

I'm willing to contribute too. It's not much money to me. (Though it will have to wait a few days when the check comes back in.)

[OnlyAmbrose]

While I think a permaban may be a little harsh, it's not my call. Nonetheless I think punishment is appropriate, and I don't think it's necessary to spell out a rule in order to support that.

My opinion on this whole thing is basically as follows:

FT is a private forum. Logging in under someone else's account violates the privacy of that forum, and that is clearly an offense.

Distaste at FT's leadership does NOT justify a violation of a private forum's privacy.

That's my opinion in as few words as possible.

Then sir, I'm confident you can see how the outlaw running roughshod over that same principle, and with VASTLY less virtuous motivation, is an example of the uneven and outrageous enforcement of the rules.

While I agree that it is violating to an extent, what Snorri and DM did, they did not take ANYTHING from your private sub-forum and use it in the public realm, did they? They maintained that sanctity because they had a purpose in mind, one of earning the ability to contribute to your sub-forum.

However, the reposting of material in the public sphere would have been an attempt to COMPLETELY undermine the integrity of your sub-forum, something they did not do, but which others on these fora have done, and continue to do without any recourse whatsoever.

If you can agree with me on these points, then we agree completely. Intent does matter.

What is the purpose of a private forum? When you get down to it, it's to keep certain people out. It's not to hide top-secret information. Whether or not they posted something in public is irrelevant - Snorri and DM ARE the public, which is why it's a violation of privacy.

If the purpose of a private forum is to keep the general public out, and then if the general public comes in, the purpose of that forum has been violated.

It's common sense so far as I'm concerned. I don't understand why there's even argument about whether what they did is right or wrong. Debate over the appropriate punishment would make sense, but whether it was appropriate behavior?

[jonesthecurl]

But I also know there are probably a lot of details that I don't know. And I know that there is a lot of hypocrisy running rampant. Like heavycola crying out against whoever reported them. I would be willing to bet that DM files more reports than anyone else here. So it is pretty hard to protest against the decision when I don't know the facts. And joining a protest when so many of the protesters are being unreasonable is not appealing either.

I agree.

So far, it seems we have 2 real issues and perhaps (only perhaps) another.

The first is whether the rules are clear enough. I would say no ... and that the fix is pretty simple, just add a few words. (using someone else's account for ANY purpose, including forum posting is against the rules. The ONLY exception is allowing someone else to take your turns when you will be gone, ("babysitting") with approval.

I think the main issue is that if it's as big an offense to post in disguise (as a legit member, on another legit member's account) as it is to set up multiple accounts to cheat in games, then his should have been more obvious.

See my posts about DaGip's thread, which was totally ignored by all rulesmongers.

Reading what the rules say, I would NOT get that. Nor did the people who did it. Nor, I submit, would any reasonable human being.

It might be different if these guys'd gone into the forum in disguise and acted badly, swearing, flingin insults and trolling shamelessly. But they did not (as the tale is told). Nobody realised what had been going on until they pulled off thier rubber masks and revealed that they'd really been Sherlock Holmes and Simon Templar, masters of disguise, all along. It was at that point that the people who had been duped protested. not because of anything they'd said or done other than actually being there and talking.

I completely agree. None of us saw anything bad in it. And it wasn't just us four who knew it, it was almost everyone in the GH. Nobody got from the rules that it wasn't allowed. Why would we do it if we knew it wasn't allowed, or even suspected it?


And the entire point was not to cause chaos. Our entire point was not to ruin the subforum, but show them that we could behave as well as them. If they didn't want us in the forum after that, so be it. But to claim we broke rules or attacked the integrity of their forums is silly.

Snorri you are a bit of a pratt at times, you are not snow white, (and square that for DM) but I fail to see how this whole thing is more than a mild prank, or how you could have anticdipated any more than the expulsion of the two forum members from the private forum and a friendly warning PM.

If you hadn't been busted, it's unlikely that more than about 25 (out of, someone said. 20,000, rather than the 10,000 I said)people would have ever realised how successful your invasion of the lets-not-go-there clan had been. Now they looks like wallys and you look like martyred heroes. Which is just what they deserve and probably more than you do.

[pimpdave]

What is the purpose of a private forum? When you get down to it, it's to keep certain people out. It's not to hide top-secret information. Whether or not they posted something in public is irrelevant - Snorri and DM ARE the public, which is why it's a violation of privacy.

If the purpose of a private forum is to keep the general public out, and then if the general public comes in, the purpose of that forum has been violated.

It's common sense so far as I'm concerned. I don't understand why there's even argument about whether what they did is right or wrong. Debate over the appropriate punishment would make sense, but whether it was appropriate behavior?

I agree with you that it was inappropriate behavior. I disagree on the point of the relevance of whether or not they leaked information.

[mpjh]

Well, they are not martyrs, they are still alive, I think.

Anyone heard from DM?

[william18]

This reminds me, when is suggs coming back?

[pimpdave]

Well, they are not martyrs, they are still alive, I think.

Anyone heard from DM?

He read a PM I sent him, but did not send a reply. I think he's lying low for awhile, which would be wise.

[OnlyAmbrose]

What is the purpose of a private forum? When you get down to it, it's to keep certain people out. It's not to hide top-secret information. Whether or not they posted something in public is irrelevant - Snorri and DM ARE the public, which is why it's a violation of privacy.

If the purpose of a private forum is to keep the general public out, and then if the general public comes in, the purpose of that forum has been violated.

It's common sense so far as I'm concerned. I don't understand why there's even argument about whether what they did is right or wrong. Debate over the appropriate punishment would make sense, but whether it was appropriate behavior?

I agree with you that it was inappropriate behavior. I disagree on the point of the relevance of whether or not they leaked information.

They did leak information. Once again, Snorri and DM are the general public and they willfully entered a forum that they didn't belong in and read "information", or whatever that means. Simon and Skittles used their accounts to "leak" it to Snorri and DM.

I'm not overly concerned about whatever "information they got" (lol ), it's just a frickin political/religious discussion, but it just undermines the purpose of private forums, so I can see why they might get banned.

Now whether or not I agree with this whole $25 payoff thing is a whole different story. That strikes me as more than a little corrupt. A week long ban or three days or something might have been more appropriate, or even a warning PM along with a boot from the private forum in question.

But whether or not I agree with the punishment, I certainly agree that what they did was wrong.

[Snorri1234]

Snorri you are a bit of a pratt at times, you are not snow white,

I know, and I don't deny that.

If you hadn't been busted, it's unlikely that more than about 25 (out of, someone said. 20,000, rather than the 10,000 I said)people would have ever realised how successful your invasion of the lets-not-go-there clan had been. Now they looks like wallys and you look like martyred heroes. Which is just what they deserve and probably more than you do.

Hehehe, I never looked at it from that angle.

[Frigidus]

This reminds me, when is suggs coming back?

Never.

[jonesthecurl]

walkies (twice in one day...)

[jonesthecurl]

Hail the matryred-but-as-someone-pointed-out-still-living heroes!

(a five-smiley salute from jonesey - who'da thought it?)