105 replies to this topic

[G-sus]

 Høbbesy, on 6 Jun 2008, 1:56, said:

 G-sus, on 5 Jun 2008, 18:54, said:

 Høbbesy, on 6 Jun 2008, 1:52, said:

 CodeCat, on 5 Jun 2008, 18:49, said:

Here you go:
*stuff*

But, didn't he also say "No offense to any Americans here."?

you´re hella stupid.
no offense to you though...

And this folks, is an example of flaming. THIS is what deserves a warn, not criticism.

i did that to state a point, obviously it worked pretty well.
however if i get a warning cuz of this i´ll accept it (in a lack of other choices ) as justified action.

[CodeCat]

He was pardoned for a few months. We got fed up with it.

[Hobbesy]

 G-sus, on 5 Jun 2008, 19:00, said:

 Høbbesy, on 6 Jun 2008, 1:56, said:

 G-sus, on 5 Jun 2008, 18:54, said:

 Høbbesy, on 6 Jun 2008, 1:52, said:

 CodeCat, on 5 Jun 2008, 18:49, said:

Here you go:
*stuff*

But, didn't he also say "No offense to any Americans here."?

you´re hella stupid.
no offense to you though...

And this folks, is an example of flaming. THIS is what deserves a warn, not criticism.

i did that to state a point, obviously it worked pretty well.
however if i get a warning cuz of this i´ll accept it (in a lack of other choices ) as justified action.

Yes, because it is a just reason. Not an un-just one, which we are trying to prove.

[Libains]

 C. Boidy, on 6 Jun 2008, 0:59, said:

Hey, enough flaming. We are not attempting to diminish the being of the staff nor the other members, but provide a reasonable and rational defense for Yayo.

Now, to any given member that made such crude comments about Westerners and Americans, I would be thoroughly angered. But Chris/Yayo should get special treatment. He has been here for a long time, he's had his hand in helping many members here, and above all, he is well liked, even by those of us that he offended with his comments. I think that goes a long way to show that despite his behaviour, he ought to be pardoned.

-Boidy

I wouldn't say pardoned - but sentence reduced sits well wih me - like a prisoner having time cut off for good behaviour.

[E.V.E.]

 C. Boidy, on 6 Jun 2008, 1:59, said:

Hey, enough flaming. We are not attempting to diminish the being of the staff nor the other members, but provide a reasonable and rational defense for Yayo.

Now, to any given member that made such crude comments about Westerners and Americans, I would be thoroughly angered. But Chris/Yayo should get special treatment. He has been here for a long time, he's had his hand in helping many members here, and above all, he is well liked, even by those of us that he offended with his comments. I think that goes a long way to show that despite his behaviour, he ought to be pardoned.

-Boidy

We do that and then when we ban someone the next time and the People will complain, they'll say:

" But you did it this and that way with Chris! Commies! "

Yeah sure. I read it often enough here that people already think we are doing everything only the way we wan't it anyway.



- E.V.E.

[Strategia]

Perhaps precisely because he's such a long-standing member of the community this ban is justified. He's been here a long time, he knows the deal, and still he managed to get himself banned. That's tantamount to giving repeat offenders reduced sentences in the criminal justice system.

edit: christ, 5 posts, biggest ninja I ever had

Edited by Strategia™©, 06 June 2008 - 00:03.

[Libains]

 Strategia™©, on 6 Jun 2008, 1:01, said:

Perhaps precisely because he's such a long-standing member of the community this ban is justified. He's been here a long time, he knows the deal, and still he managed to get himself banned. That's tantamount to giving repeat offenders reduced sentences in the criminal justice system.

edit: christ, 5 posts, biggest ninja I ever had

I agree that it would make a good point as he is soo long standing, but I never argued that that was a reason for him to stay other - it was a measure of appeasement to wards both sides of the argument to prevent an increased argument (obviously failed).
PS - with this thread I may yet get to 700 posts by the time the night is out!

[Whitey]

I' myself have made more insulting comments than he has over my time here, and have been banned only once, and from only one section of the forum (unless you count the self-induced ban).

I want more examples of his "built up" comments, the many straws that contributed the the back of the camel breaking. What was given doesn't seem like proper banning grounds.

-Boidy

[Strategia]

Why reduce his ban? It is the Staff's decision to ban him. Allowing bans to be shortened, opening up punishment for popular discussion, publicly revealing each and every reason contributing to the decision - then what do we have Staffers for? What's next, petitions to promote/demote members/Staffers? Elections for admin? Admin decisions based on equal debate among the members? That's no way to run a forum.

It might seem like Staffers and above are acting arbitrarily, but that's what they're for. Criticising them for banning someone without revealing reasons is like criticising the police for arresting someone based on evidence gathered through undercover work. The Staffers have a job to do, so for everyone's sake just let them do it.

[Whitey]

Legal punishment is often carried out by a jury of peers, randomly selected, and the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

Staff are not peers to standard members. There are differences in thinking that derive from that badge and the moderating powers. It doesn't make the staff more right, it just means they have different opinions.

What aws done by the staff is more of a Guantanamo Bay than a proper court.

-Boidy

Post Script: A testimony from the defendant himself - From Chris: I have to admit i made epic offensive posts back then especially the "Nazi" part. I'm sorry if i offended people back then and i'm sorry but using the critism i gave to bob about being harsh to temp ban me is weak.

Edited by C. Boidy, 06 June 2008 - 00:24.

[Libains]

 Strategia™©, on 6 Jun 2008, 1:15, said:

Why reduce his ban? It is the Staff's decision to ban him. Allowing bans to be shortened, opening up punishment for popular discussion, publicly revealing each and every reason contributing to the decision - then what do we have Staffers for? What's next, petitions to promote/demote members/Staffers? Elections for admin? Admin decisions based on equal debate among the members? That's no way to run a forum.

It might seem like Staffers and above are acting arbitrarily, but that's what they're for. Criticising them for banning someone without revealing reasons is like criticising the police for arresting someone based on evidence gathered through undercover work. The Staffers have a job to do, so for everyone's sake just let them do it.

As i see this is a argument that I'm not going to win, (as I'm going to bed), i concede that yes it is better for staff to be seen arbitrarily, and that while this is not a dictatorship, it's not quite a democracy either. Leave the ban at two weeks and let him sort himself out - we might all learn from what has come of this thread yet.

[Lizzie]

 C. Boidy, on 5 Jun 2008, 20:19, said:

Legal punishment is often carried out by a jury of peers, randomly selected, and the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

Staff are not peers to standard members. There are differences in thinking that derive from that badge and the moderating powers. It doesn't make the staff more right, it just means they have different opinions.

What aws done by the staff is more of a Guantanamo Bay than a proper court.

-Boidy

And this isn't a Democracy. Nor does it have a judicial system. And don't say it needs to be, because I've been staff on a democratically run forum and it failed.

[Strategia]

 C. Boidy, on 6 Jun 2008, 2:19, said:

Legal punishment is often carried out by a jury of peers, randomly selected, and the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

Staff are not peers to standard members. There are differences in thinking that derive from that badge and the moderating powers. It doesn't make the staff more right, it just means they have different opinions.

What aws done by the staff is more of a Guantanamo Bay than a proper court.

-Boidy

Exactly. Like I said, ES is a public forum, but not a democracy. Staffers' jobs are to keep the peace, and if each and every decision has to be ratified by a jury of peers first nothing would ever get done and the forum would slowly but surely become ever more of a cesspool. If that means that occasionally they make bad decisions (though I am NOT judging anyone in this matter), then so be it. After all, this is teh intarwebz, not real life, and bad decisions by Staffers here are much, much less worse than bad decision by soldiers or other government agents in real life, where real people get hurt.

[Whitey]

That still does not mean that the staff are always correct in their decisions. Perspectives must be gathered from more angles than top-down to give a fair punishment. I'm not saying this must be done all the time, usually punishments seem reasonably fair to all (I won't name names, but instead, colors, like red), but this particular punishment is a special case.

-Boidy

And more from Yayo: People that knows me knows that i'm not a serious person and i have a strange mood swing from time to time an often blurt out weird posts and sometimes "out of line".
Also, I now know that the "freedom of speech" E-S used to have back in 2003 upto 2006 is slowly disappearing. I guess that happens when times change and there's nothing i can do about it.

Edited by C. Boidy, 06 June 2008 - 00:30.

[Strategia]

 C. Boidy, on 6 Jun 2008, 2:27, said:

That still does not mean that the staff are always correct in their decisions. Perspectives must be gathered from more angles than top-down to give a fair punishment.

-Boidy

Then you'd get favouritism of members, inertia in Staff decisions, demands for redress, etc. etc. etc. The end result will be the same: a non-functional Staff body being directed by the public at large, which leads either to a shithole of a forum or a Bolshevik takeover, depending on the specific situation. ()

edit:

Quote

I'm not saying this must be done all the time, usually punishments seem reasonably fair to all (I won't name names, but instead, colors, like red), but this particular punishment is a special case.

I've yet to see anyone provide a convincing argument as to why this case is "special", apart from Chris being a long-standing member of the community (which I've already discredited).

Edited by Strategia™©, 06 June 2008 - 00:32.

[Whitey]

Not if the staff are TRULY capable of managing their positions and exercising the leadership that they possess.

There's nothing wrong with a bit of favoritism, given that some members deserve it more than others. Not everyone is equal, otherwise we would all be members or all be administrators.

"I've yet to see anyone provide a convincing argument as to why this case is "special", apart from Chris being a long-standing member of the community (which I've already discredited)."

But Chris has helped the members of this community more than he has hurt them. He's contributed to the mods hosted here, something that most other members don't do. He is also in this situation for issues that really don't seem all that problematic. That is why this case is special.

-Boidy

Edited by C. Boidy, 06 June 2008 - 00:36.

[Stinger]

An insult is an insult no matter how you attempt to dress it up, and Chris's sweeping statements about Americans were inappropriate and down right offensive.

How hard is it to take a moment to think about what you're saying before hitting Add Reply?

[Strategia]

 C. Boidy, on 6 Jun 2008, 2:33, said:

Not if the staff are TRULY capable of managing their positions and exercising the leadership that they possess.

That's precisely the problem; there'll always be people who second-guess Staff decisions, and if the responsibility for calling a discussion lies with the members you'd end up with the situation I've outlined and Lizzie experienced, and if the responsibility lies with the Staff they'd rarely if ever use it and nothing would really change.

Quote

Not everyone is equal, otherwise we would all be members or all be administrators.

True - which is precisely why Staff decisions need to be final, since they are, to put it in Orwellian terms, "more equal than others". They have been selected by the admins to do their jobs, and the admins also have the right to remove them if they feel they are making the wrong decisions. (Also note that while I spell "Staffer" with a capital letter, "admin" has a lowercase one. I just noticed )

Quote

But Chris has helped the members of this community more than he has hurt them. He's contributed to the mods hosted here, something that most other members don't do. He is also in this situation for issues that really don't seem all that problematic. That is why this case is special.

-Boidy

Nonetheless, he did pile up inflammatory post after inflammatory post. He ignored the rules, and he knew what was coming since he already had a warn. There's quite a lot of people involved in some mod or other, so that shouldn't make him special either. Again, I have yet to be convinced that this case is in fact special.



And this is why I missed you, Boidy - the good solid long discussions. You're one of the most eloquent and rational people I know, and discussing with you feels much better, is on a much higher level, than the usual fare on this forum.

[Whitey]

 Strategia™©, on 5 Jun 2008, 19:46, said:

 C. Boidy, on 6 Jun 2008, 2:33, said:

Not if the staff are TRULY capable of managing their positions and exercising the leadership that they possess.

That's precisely the problem; there'll always be people who second-guess Staff decisions, and if the responsibility for calling a discussion lies with the members you'd end up with the situation I've outlined and Lizzie experienced, and if the responsibility lies with the Staff they'd rarely if ever use it and nothing would really change.

Quote

Not everyone is equal, otherwise we would all be members or all be administrators.

True - which is precisely why Staff decisions need to be final, since they are, to put it in Orwellian terms, "more equal than others". They have been selected by the admins to do their jobs, and the admins also have the right to remove them if they feel they are making the wrong decisions. (Also note that while I spell "Staffer" with a capital letter, "admin" has a lowercase one. I just noticed )

Quote

But Chris has helped the members of this community more than he has hurt them. He's contributed to the mods hosted here, something that most other members don't do. He is also in this situation for issues that really don't seem all that problematic. That is why this case is special.

-Boidy

Nonetheless, he did pile up inflammatory post after inflammatory post. He ignored the rules, and he knew what was coming since he already had a warn. There's quite a lot of people involved in some mod or other, so that shouldn't make him special either. Again, I have yet to be convinced that this case is in fact special.



And this is why I missed you, Boidy - the good solid long discussions. You're one of the most eloquent and rational people I know, and discussing with you feels much better, is on a much higher level, than the usual fare on this forum.

To address point #1:

Again, if the staff are entirely capable of their positions, things won't get out of hand. Members don't second guess those they trust. The current administration does have a reasonable amount of trust in it. I and those that agree with me do not trust the authority of the administration though, thus this topic. I wouldn't second guess them if they didn't give me reason to do so, and I can point out examples as to why I have reasons to second guess them.

To address points #2

You took the wrong meaning from that point: Chris deserves more of a pardon given his position. He should be favored because he is a mod leader and hs his mod to look after, he has aided a number of mods here as mentioned (and I don't mean just beta tested), and he is a veteran, of which the latter can work both ways as you've pointed out. He does deserve negative sanctions, perhaps, but a two week ban? For someone who can most certainly adjust in far less time with far more efficient means?

And yes, he did pile up inflammatory posts, but so has everyone here. The staff simply caught onto his and warned him about it. But again, others have done worse and slipped by under the RADAR. Chris's were just seen more openly. And I've already discredited half of the "inflammatory posts" that were pointed out.

#3 was addressed above.

I propose that Chris be put on a strict parole that he cannot break for two weeks. If he makes an inflammatory post, then fine, he's had his warning, but what was done to him just recently isn't right. He had no warning that what he was doing was wrong, form what I can tell, barring his previous warning, which was issued too long ago to have any merit. So his "inflammatory" posts didn't seem bad to him as he wasn't warned on them.

In his case, I feel that the warn system was indeed partially to blame. Perhaps it should be looked at.

-Boidy

[Overdose]

We shouldn't treat anyone especially. I'm sure you all like Chris but he broke the rules. Chris has been warned before and has been suspended for his erratic behavior. If I'm having a bad day or if I'm feeling anti-social I stay away from people. I don't use it as an excuse to act like he did. Besides, you people don't even know 1% of what's going on behind the scenes of this forum.

The Staff reached a decision and we've acted on it.

Edited by Overdose, 06 June 2008 - 01:09.

[Whitey]

Define "you people".

That aside, Again, some do deserve special treatment. You were given special treatment in that you are a staff member and see more than most see going on behind the scenes. Don't use "everyone deserves equal treatment" as an argument when you and I both know that to be false. Some are just more worthy than others.

-Boidy

[Strategia]

 C. Boidy, on 6 Jun 2008, 2:58, said:

To address point #1:

Again, if the staff are entirely capable of their positions, things won't get out of hand. Members don't second guess those they trust. The current administration does have a reasonable amount of trust in it. I and those that agree with me do not trust the authority of the administration though, thus this topic. I wouldn't second guess them if they didn't give me reason to do so, and I can point out examples as to why I have reasons to second guess them.

The Admins (yes, capital letter now) selected the Staff not (primarily) because of public trust, but because of the fact that they'd make good Staffers, and probably because of any number of other reasons they won't share with us. And ultimately it's the Admins who run this forum, and who sign off on the Staffers' actions. The general population might not trust some of the Staffers, and second-guess their decisions, but at the end of the day (or night, depending on your timezone ) it's the Admins that have the right to decide who is right and who isn't, and their decision generally falls in favour of the Staffers. It's like second-guessing your office manager, it just won't work.

Quote

To address points #2

You took the wrong meaning from that point: Chris deserves more of a pardon given his position. He should be favored because he is a mod leader and hs his mod to look after, he has aided a number of mods here as mentioned (and I don't mean just beta tested), and he is a veteran, of which the latter can work both ways as you've pointed out. He does deserve negative sanctions, perhaps, but a two week ban? For someone who can most certainly adjust in far less time with far more efficient means?

And I say again this is precisely why he should be punished. He knows the consequences better than new members - I repeat what I said about giving repeat offenders reduced sentences.

Quote

And yes, he did pile up inflammatory posts, but so has everyone here. The staff simply caught onto his and warned him about it. But again, others have done worse and slipped by under the RADAR. Chris's were just seen more openly. And I've already discredited half of the "inflammatory posts" that were pointed out.

#3 was addressed above.

So you're saying Chris should be unbanned because others have gotten away with more?

Quote

I propose that Chris be put on a strict parole that he cannot break for two weeks. If he makes an inflammatory post, then fine, he's had his warning, but what was done to him just recently isn't right. He had no warning that what he was doing was wrong, form what I can tell, barring his previous warning, which was issued too long ago to have any merit. So his "inflammatory" posts didn't seem bad to him as he wasn't warned on them.

His first warning was his "parole". He knew the consequences, and he still kept making inflammatory posts. And two refer back to "For someone who can most certainly adjust in far less time with far more efficient means?", these two weeks might just be what he needs to adjust. Punishment is there for a reason.

Quote

In his case, I feel that the warn system was indeed partially to blame. Perhaps it should be looked at.

-Boidy

The two-week ban was not just a consequence of the warn system, but also a conscious choice of the Staffers involved. Temp ban on second warning, perma-ban on third sounds pretty reasonable considering the fact that warn level can be reduced at the Staffers' discretion.

edit:

Quote

[color="#FFF000"]That aside, Again, some do deserve special treatment. You were given special treatment in that you are a staff member and see more than most see going on behind the scenes. Don't use "everyone deserves equal treatment" as an argument when you and I both know that to be false. Some are just more worthy than others.

And the reason Chris deserves special treatment is because he works on multiple mods? Yes, Staffers have special treatment and know what's going on behind the scenes - that's what they're for, just like the FBI and CIA, to take a few real-world examples. Indeed, "everyone" does not deserve equal treatment, but why should that disparity lay between Members, Staffers and Project Team/Leader when it is (and, IMO, should be) between Members at large and Staffers?

Edited by Strategia™©, 06 June 2008 - 01:24.

[Nem]

Just the other week members were complaining about how staff didn't do enough, now when they do they get bitched at.
I was getting sick of Chris's constant anti American rants, and I was starting to think the staff shared his views.

Thank you, for Justice.

(I think Boidy and Hobbes need a warn too. )

[Kichō]

What? Banned for stating his opinion? :| I'm sorry but that's just kinda dumb IMO ... And I agree with Boidy people have done far worse than he Chris has. :s


@Nem: Uh why should Boidy and Hobbesy get warned for defending Chris? :|

[Strategia]

 Nem, on 6 Jun 2008, 3:23, said:

(I think Boidy and Hobbes need a warn too. )

E-Studios may not be a democracy, but it's not repressively fascist either. Hobbes and Boidy have done or said nothing that would warrant a warn.

Quote

What? Banned for stating his opinion? :| I'm sorry but that's just kinda dumb IMO ...

That may be his opinion, but the way he put it it was insulting. He broke the rules, and was warned. If I say "IMO you are a total fuckhead", that's still insulting, isn't it?

Quote

And I agree with Boidy people have done far worse than he Chris has. :s

That still doesn't mean Chris should go free. Should a criminal on trial go free because other crimes have gone unpunished?

Edited by Strategia™©, 06 June 2008 - 01:28.