145 replies to this topic

[artificial]

I figured by "these people" he probably meant you and cronus specifically rather than all of our members.

That would do nothing be reaffirm my original point. Feel free to do so, I'd just consider it a point won.

The banning doesn't affect the product which is available for purchase on NeoCodex (Advanced program privileges).

So you're saying Apple could issue a press release with a big "fuck you" to Samsung customers? Shit, it doesn't affect their product.

[Drakonid]

The banning doesn't affect the product which is available for purchase on NeoCodex (Advanced program privileges).

That's not what they're talking about.
At all.

[Mishelle]

Wouldn't you rather have the admins working on new programs and products to offer to you than constantly having to drop what they're doing and deal with the same troll over and over again all day?

[Waser Lave]

That would do nothing be reaffirm my original point. Feel free to do so, I'd just consider it a point won.

If I felt it necessary to close the thread I would have already done it.

[Galadriel]

Wouldn't you rather have the admins working on new programs and products to offer to you than constantly having to drop what they're doing and deal with the same troll over and over again all day?

Neither answer to this question justifies a hypocrtical moderation team.

[Trichomes]

Khaligula would be so pleased with the impact his banning has had on this community.

[Sweeney]

The staff are subject to the same rules as the members, plus further, more stringent rules on top.

Laser Wave's "mistake" has been "dealt with" as the Administration saw fit. That's... it.

[Waser Lave]

if that is the case then he obviously didn't understand the point I was trying to make. The point was, in simplest form: that staff can act out of line and be dealt with by a set of rules different to those which govern normal members. While there have been some lengthly replies, no member of staff has even acknowledged that this is the case and that it is hypocritcal.

All members, staff included, are dealt with by the same set of rules with punishments ranging from verbal warnings to permanent bans. I would have thought this was obvious from warn histories.

[Tocsin]

Feel free to leave this site as an act of solidarity towards your banned brother.

[Nymh]

if that is the case then he obviously didn't understand the point I was trying to make. The point was, in simplest form: that staff can act out of line and be dealt with by a set of rules different to those which govern normal members. While there have been some lengthly replies, no member of staff has even acknowledged that this is the case and that it is hypocritcal.

You seem to have missed where I pointed out that the way Waser was dealt with was no different than how we would deal with normal members. Disciplinary actions are situation-specific.

This is no different than asking why Onlyme didn't get warned for calling Sweeney a smelly cuntface. It's still an insult, so why didn't she get warned? Why wasn't Boggart warned when he called Bone a wild slut? Why didn't we warn every single person that publicly asked us to ban Khaligula? Or iargue? These are all technically against the rules, that doesn't mean that we are hypocritical when we choose to enforce the rules differently for different situations.

Why are you so adamant about giving formal warnings to staff members, anyway? Do you not think that a staff member who showed a consistent inability to follow forum rules would be fired?

[Keil]

Khaligula would be so pleased with the impact his banning has had on this community.

You beat me to it.

Lolli Khali will most likely bypass the ban by making a new account from a public computer just to read and laugh at certain comments posted in this thread (judging by his past behavior). To those who continously push extraneous and misdirected discussion, Lolli Khali will be overjoyed that his mere existence of a troll here was meaningful. Do you want to give him that satisfaction?

[Turnip]

I don't really understand why there's a topic about this? He was breaking the rules and was disrupting the community (that's how I'm seeing it anyways), isn't that enough for a ban? o.o I mean obviously the rules can be stretched a bit depending on the case, nothing wrong with that.

It's a bit selfish to think "oh, he shouldn't have been banned because I like him", what about everyone else? Did the community as a whole enjoy his trolling?
lmao no

[Elindoril]

Do you want to give him that satisfaction?

People were doing this from the start, it doesn't even matter by now.

[Galadriel]

You seem to have missed where I pointed out that the way Waser was dealt with was no different than how we would deal with normal members. Disciplinary actions are situation-specific.

This is no different than asking why Onlyme didn't get warned for calling Sweeney a smelly cuntface. It's still an insult, so why didn't she get warned? Why wasn't Boggart warned when he called Bone a wild slut? Why didn't we warn every single person that publicly asked us to ban Khaligula? Or iargue? These are all technically against the rules, that doesn't mean that we are hypocritical when we choose to enforce the rules differently for different situations.

Why are you so adamant about giving formal warnings to staff members, anyway? Do you not think that a staff member who showed a consistent inability to follow forum rules would be fired?

You are intelligent enough to know that friendly banter is different from more vindictive offenses like posting someone's personal information. I am not sure whether to feel insulted or amused at the fact you really just tried to pull that card.

The rules are fundamentally flawed if a staff member, who is apparently subjected to more stringent rules than the typical member, can post someone's personal information and only be reprimanded, but someone who says something like "go fuck yourself" receives a 10% warn, which is made public.

[Nymh]

You are intelligent enough to know that friendly banter is different from more vindictive offenses like posting someone's personal information. I am not sure whether to feel insulted or amused at the fact you really just tried to pull that card.

The rules are fundamentally flawed if a staff member, who is apparently subjected to more stringent rules than the typical member, can post someone's personal information and only be reprimanded, but someone who says something like "go fuck yourself" receives a 10% warn, which is made public.

I'm not trying to "pull any cards." They may have different implications to you, but both are against the rules, as are a lot of things that we simply let go of in certain situations (like public dissent toward staff members, for one). You still haven't answered why you are so adamant about staff members receiving public warns.

[Waser Lave]

You are intelligent enough to know that friendly banter is different from more vindictive offenses like posting someone's personal information. I am not sure whether to feel insulted or amused at the fact you really just tried to pull that card.

Except that, as I've already explained and you have chosen to ignore, I didn't post anybody's personal information so your 'argument' is moot.

[Galadriel]

Why are you so adamant about giving formal warnings to staff members, anyway? Do you not think that a staff member who showed a consistent inability to follow forum rules would be fired?

Because I think it is a problem which isn't going to correct itself, and as a member I am entitled to ask these questions. And no, I do not think a staff member showing inability to follow the rules would be fired based on the points I have been trying to raise. The staffing team (as a general unit, not individuals) shows an inability to divorce itself from a seemingly hypocrital way of acting.

Except that, as I've already explained and you have chosen to ignore, I didn't post anybody's personal information so your 'argument' is moot.

I chose to ignore it because I assumed someone as intelligent as you didn't really believe that posting a link which directly takes one to the information is any different to posting the information directly. Apparently not.

Edited by cronus, 04 October 2012 - 07:45 AM.

[Mishelle]

If you can find the info on Google it's probably not personal.

[Sweeney]

Because I think it is a problem which isn't going to correct itself, and as a member I am entitled to ask these questions. And no, I do not think a staff member showing inability to follow the rules would be fired based on the points I have been trying to raise. The staffing team (as a general unit, not individuals) shows an inability to divorce itself from a seemingly hypocrital way of acting.

But staff do get public warnings... just as frequently as any other member...
So...?

[Nymh]

I'm just really having a problem following this. The situation was dealt with appropriately, your only problem seems to be that Waser didn't get a public warn. One might argue that having to sit here and have his actions and his integrity as a staff member called into question because his superiors didn't see a pressing need to make the repercussions public even more of a punishment.

[Waser Lave]

I chose to ignore it because I assumed someone as intelligent as you didn't really believe that posting a link which directly takes one to the information is any different to posting the information directly. Apparently not.

So you're claiming that we don't stick to the rules but you want us to bend the rules to meet your particular interpretation? I've already explained my intention and that intention wasn't to intimidate or harass so I'm not entirely sure what rule you claim I broke. Perhaps if you let me know which rule that is I can explain further.

[Nymh]

I find it unsettling that we're all supposed to be indifferent to mods breaking the rules as much as regular members.
Aren't you supposed to be setting the example?

I think he meant that when we break rules, we are just as likely to receive a public warn as any other member would be when they break a rule. The only staffers that I can remember receiving warns during their tenure are Waser and myself, which has been fairly recently. Not to say it hasn't happened in the past, I've only been here a year.

[Sweeney]

I find it unsettling that we're all supposed to be indifferent to mods breaking the rules as much as regular members.
Aren't you supposed to be setting the example?

The point is that it's infrequent. You should be concerned if the number is high, but staff are people, not flawless paragons of virtue.