145 replies to this topic

[Sweeney]

I've decided that I like Cronus after all.

I'm sure he'll be thrilled.

[Romy]

We are users of the services and members of the community. I am sure the admins will agree that every member of the community is entitled to an opinion and the right to voice the opinion.

Look at the context of what I said. He was talking about how Codex treats it's customers. Not the members of the community.
There is a clear distinction.

Though I do agree with you.

[Mew]

You realise this isn't the bible?

Strangely enough I did make that distinction, yes.

[Romy]

Advanced or not, Codex appears to be drawing revenue to selling click through advertising space. Therefore, it depends upon Advanced and regular members for revenue. Thus, your concept of "customer" is just mud foolish.

You are correct about the ads.
However, people that contribute pennies should not be considered on the same level as people who pay for advanced membership.
Even Neopets caters a bit more to "Premium" members.


cus·tom·er

• A person or organization that buys goods or services from a store or other business.

Non-Advanced members do not buy goods from here. I don't see why my definition is "mud foolish" coltom.
Care to enlighten me?


EDIT: That being said, I do agree that all members should be considered equal. I am arguing this based SOLELY on whether or not Kami's ban was justified if we base it on the opinions of those who purchase advanced.

Edited by Ivysaur, 04 October 2012 - 09:17 AM.

[Frizzle]

Just to remind people, posting, or linking to, people's private/personal information is illegal in certain jurisdictions, areas and countries. I can think of three different laws in the UK off my head which can be seen as an offence. Don't try and file it under "Well I only linked to it, I didn't post it".

Most people wouldn't of been aware of these information if it wasn't for certain members posting it, therefore bringing it into our domain. Look at torrent sites, whilst they do not directly store pirated media, they will still get shut down for linking to it.

Especially seen as the person was spreading this personal information was a member of staff, someone who directly represents the site and is supposed to be held to higher and stringent rules then the rest of us, you would expect severe punishments.

But of course, only after cronus posted a time-of-the-month thread, did someone after three pages say "Yeah he got told off, I can't tell you what happened to him, but trust me, it was bad "

Standards people.

[Bone]

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?

LEAVE ME OUT OF THIS, YOU FESTERING WENCH!

[ShadowLink64]

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.

It was determined by me to be a case of light harassment in the report that I told you I created, but after some discussion, we came to the conclusion that it wasn't his intent to harass him. To come to this decision, I took into consideration a few things, including what Kami's own reaction was to the incident (which was, well, nothing). I came to a different conclusion than you did in the end. I'm sorry that I did not agree with your judgement on the matter, but sometimes that's what happens.

Common staff, stop acting like you actually believe that is justified. It makes you look spineless.

It's easy to criticize others, but you've posted up Napiform's real name on the status updates without her permission, arguably with the intent to harass either Yung or Napiform. Rest assured, it will be dealt with according to the rules of the board.

Implying 99% of members actually contribute anything to the forum. Would you rather I be another drone? Would you get off more if I were to simply fall in line and praise you and other staff members for all of the fabulous work you do on the site?

Personally, I don't care. If you banned him because you don't like him, own it - don't skirt around it. However, for a website that enforces its rules so diligently (honestly some of those warns are ridiculous) it just seems highly hypocritical to ban someone for such a pathetic and personal reason. It brings me back to my original question: why hasn't iargue been banned? Nobody likes him and he single handedly brings the IQ of the board down 10 points (and renders the debating section pointless with his idiocy).

iargue doesn't create huge amounts of work for us, just misinterprets topic moves as administrative decisions. It's circumstantial. If you want to compare it to a business, it's akin to kicking a disruptive customer out of your store.

It's a little petty in nature, but we can still do it, I did do it with the support of the entire staff, and I don't regret it due to the benefits in time and stress relief that it will give me and the staff. The consequences of doing this is risking having people be dissatisfied in our decision, and frankly Alex, you seem dissatisfied at most things we do here so I'm not all too concerned.

Ok, thank you for clearing that up. When will the rules be adapted to reflect this?

This isn't the first time actions like this have been done. Nunc and Maha are examples of people banned under these pretences. Enforcement of rules is based on what's codified in the rules document, and on past precedents. Another example of a ban based on a past precedent is conspiracy. While nothing in our rules says that "plotting Neocodex's demise will warrant you a ban", we've banned people for doing exactly that. We can explicitly state situations in our rules only to a certain point.

That is partly why we have public disclosure of warns, suspensions and bans. The other reason, of course, is accountability. Some communities disclose very little, or nothing to their members.

Just to remind people, posting, or linking to, people's private/personal information is illegal in certain jurisdictions, areas and countries. I can think of three different laws in the UK off my head which can be seen as an offence. Don't try and file it under "Well I only linked to it, I didn't post it".

Most people wouldn't of been aware of these information if it wasn't for certain members posting it, therefore bringing it into our domain. Look at torrent sites, whilst they do not directly store pirated media, they will still get shut down for linking to it.

Especially seen as the person was spreading this personal information was a member of staff, someone who directly represents the site and is supposed to be held to higher and stringent rules then the rest of us, you would expect severe punishments.

But of course, only after cronus posted a time-of-the-month thread, did someone after three pages say "Yeah he got told off, I can't tell you what happened to him, but trust me, it was bad "

Standards people.

Lee, I think you're right about the liability part. Linking to the information did create more awareness and easier accessibility to his personal information and from that standpoint, we could be held partially liable if something were to happen. We were looking at the situation more from a harassment standpoint than from Waser's action being a legal liability. I will raise this issue with staff right now, and update our Privacy Policy to cover the relaying of outside information from other sources in public. As for warranting punishment, I disagree for this instance alone. It warrants proactive action on the part of the admins so that it won't happen next time. If it does, then we can talk punishments.

[onlyme]

I'm sure he'll be thrilled.

Oh god I spit my drink. LMAO!

[Sweeney]

Justice delayed is justice denied. The personal information was up and nothing was done. Delay provided access. Because it was a student working on his research paper about the gestalt of a webmind, does not mean the swarmy toad did not deserve legal and morale protection from abuse and the mob with pitchforks. How you treat your enemies is how you will eventually be treated.

That being said, I was generally pleased with your statement and the consideration you are giving the issue.

The comment was removed long, long ago.
Almost immediately.

[ShadowLink64]

Justice delayed is justice denied. The personal information was up and nothing was done. Delay provided access. Because it was a student working on his research paper about the gestalt of a webmind, does not mean the swarmy toad did not deserve legal and morale protection from abuse and the mob with pitchforks. How you treat your enemies is how you will eventually be treated.

That being said, I was generally pleased with your statement and the consideration you are giving the issue.

The information was removed as soon as I was notified of it by cronus.

We are currently discussing adjusting our policies so that staff will know to not post this information in the first place, and if posted by a member, remove this information in a more expedient manner so that:
a) potential harassment can be averted (since having your info up can be pretty intimidating to some), even if the intent was not to harass
b) the site can be saved from legal headaches if someone were to use the info mischeviously

See?

Thanks.

[Sweeney]

Sounds good to me!

You're welcome

[Waser Lave]

Reality, however, is a very different tale.

[trizzle]

Reality, however, is a very different tale.

Dang, where do I hand in my staff application?

[Boggart]

I stand by my stance that Bone is a wild slut

[Romy]

Since this thread has turned into a whole lot of pig fat, I figured this was on topic.

You were mistaken.

[Cyo]

according to the rules "trolling is not welcome at Neocodex".

[tri]

We have already went over this I thought.

[Chappy]

I think for the 2nd time ever on a non customization thingy have I + repped people @__@
Just saying I think the publicly warned ones were for Khail too anyways. So with him gone I guess this won't be happening often.
Also regardless of the situation, I think it's been pretty even and fair for warns and stuff.
Besides, he did win next ban and it was correct.