OnlyAmbrose wrote:
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.
I hadn't really thought about it that way. However, I think we CAN agree that had leak been extended beyond the two offending parties, that would have gone a long way towards justifying the shakedown punishment. As it stands, I think you and I both agree on the point of the severity of the punishment part.
I would like to add, Only Ambrose, that I am impressed with how rational you are on this topic. I hate to admit it, but I expected FT members to dance with glee upon the graves. Thank you for proving me wrong.
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
OnlyAmbrose wrote:
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.
I don't think most people have a problem with "they did something wrong".
william18 wrote:
Wasn't he banned for just 6 months?
Yeah, but then he went all Count of Monte Cristo and was apprehended before the final show down.
Perhaps a better analogy would be to the Polish Resistance rising up in WWII. They did it too soon, and were cut down by tanks and machine guns with their pitchforks and pistols. If they had just waited in the shadows longer, they could have lived to fight when the Allies finally advanced their meandering war machine far enough along to make a difference.
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
william18 wrote:This reminds me, when is suggs coming back?
Never.
Wasn't he banned for just 6 months?
Originally, but he wouldn't let it lie, and, it has to be said, kept being a pest. If he hadn't been such a twit we'd have seen him again. I was sorry to see him go but in that case the powers-that-be had no choice.
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.
Law? Perpetuate? What are you, some kind of lawyer?
ICAN wrote: im not finishing this game ball-less wonder go find another eunich to play with.
black elk speaks wrote:
Law? Perpetuate? What are you, some kind of lawyer?
No, just someone with more than a 3rd grade education. *ahem*
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
black elk speaks wrote:
Oh, well then why do you tantrum like a third grader. I say to hell with those guys that got banned. They tested the limits. they got burned.
What? Why do you want to make out with me so badly?
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
black elk speaks wrote:Oh, well then why do you tantrum like a third grader. I say to hell with those guys that got banned. They tested the limits. they got burned.
Well, you're the expert....
You're not upset about the lack of support you recieved are you? Zing!
pmchugh wrote:Im confused this thread went from: lets not give them anymore money! to Lets collect money for them!
If anyone was to give up paying prem surely it would be snorri and co?
I was the first person who brought up the idea of donation. CurmudgeonX was the first person to follow through.
I don't want to make any promises in this thread, but I'll be in touch with the people who know the other two shakedown victims and something might happen during business hours tomorrow.
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
OnlyAmbrose wrote: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.
Seriously. Given the fact that the rule is by no means explicitly laid out (i.e. you wouldn't know it was wrong simply by reading the rules), they should have been far more lenient on the punishment. That's not including the fact that there intention was so far from causing trouble it makes me want to laugh. They were trying to do the OPPOSITE.
If they damaged the so bad that it warranted taking them off it, how does them paying $25 amend their "bad behavior"? It doesn't do shit for the community at large. Or was the good of the community never really the issue? HMMMMMMMMMMM....
<>---------------------------<> ......Come play CC Mafia, .....where happiness lies <>----------[Link]----------<>
Well, lets look at this from another point of view. Snorri, DM, Skittles!, And Simon actually did hurt the integrity of this site. It was their stoopid actions that caused....... Oh wait....
It was Twicked's actions that hurt the integrity of the site... my bad.
I'm not re-newing. I can't even believe DM and Snorri came back without an apology and reinstatement.
The part of this whole debacle that gets me is how the "rules" were enforced.
All four members were "busted" for being multis. By the definition of "multi", as given in the rules on this site, only Snorri and DM qualify. Both Skittles and Simon still only had one account each, and only access to their one account. So how did it come to pass that they qualify as multis?
As for Snorri and DM, they may have actually deserved a penalty under the rules of private groups, but these rules are so wishy-washy and very difficult to find that it's difficult to even comprehend them as rules.
I suspect that the actions of Snorri and DM, and Skittles and Simon, to go into a private forum that the administrators of that forum were so against really struck a nerve with the upper echelon of the Fireside Tavern usergroup. Someone clearly sent a PM to Twill (as I cannot find a public complaint in the Cheating and Abuse forum), to which Twill responded with his usually tactics - a full permaban on all 4 members involved. To overact as such is simply childish and immature, and the moderators should all be ashamed at Twill's actions.
denominator wrote:The part of this whole debacle that gets me is how the "rules" were enforced.
All four members were "busted" for being multis. By the definition of "multi", as given in the rules on this site, only Snorri and DM qualify. Both Skittles and Simon still only had one account each, and only access to their one account. So how did it come to pass that they qualify as multis?
Very good point. They never had any acces to another account.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
), 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.
