105 replies to this topic

[Camille]

all this is extremely subjective IMO. he clearly stated he did'nt mean any harm with it... whats the problem? i think the problem is there are a bit too much rabid pro-americans here... or would that be offending?

[Nem]

Zhen Ji, on 5 Jun 2008, 21:25, said:

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

Prime example of why I should never be in a position of moderation, Rule with an iron fist.

Edited by Nem, 06 June 2008 - 01:32.

[Camille]

and... what does this add to the whole matter?

[Strategia]

ka1000, on 6 Jun 2008, 3:26, said:

all this is extremely subjective IMO. he clearly stated he did'nt mean any harm with it... whats the problem? i think the problem is there are a bit too much rabid pro-americans here... or would that be offending?

In my subjective opinion, you are a retarded fuckbend, no offence meant. (NOT SERIOUS.) Not insulting?

Nem, on 6 Jun 2008, 3:28, said:

Prime example of why I should never be in a position of moderation, Rule with an iron fist.

Then you are no better than all those dictators that have all dissidents shot. Why should they be warned? Yes, they disagree with a Staff decision, but show me where they break the rules in doing that.

[Nem]

FORGOT THE SMILE, WHOOPS.

You people are piranhas.

[Whitey]

Me, Hobbes, and Swimmer are all Americans and we are defending the guy. Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions.

Chris meant no harm, and he realizes his errors, and he is sorry. And I feel we can trust that this is true, correct me if I am wrong, but he has done no other harm. Thus punishment is unnecessary.

-Boidy

[Camille]

Strategia™©, on 6 Jun 2008, 1:31, said:

ka1000, on 6 Jun 2008, 3:26, said:

all this is extremely subjective IMO. he clearly stated he did'nt mean any harm with it... whats the problem? i think the problem is there are a bit too much rabid pro-americans here... or would that be offending?

In my subjective opinion, you are a retarded fuckbend, no offence meant. (NOT SERIOUS.) Not insulting?

from what i have seen, what he said was absolutely not up to par with the example you give there. i truly believe some people are just being a bit too fanatical about it and want to act important and "correct" by banning on the basis of harmless content like that. mainly to shape the illusion of "justice" and hierarchy probably.

Edited by ka1000, 06 June 2008 - 01:39.

[Overdose]

That's what makes us different. I truly believe all human beings should be treated equally. Call me innocent or foolish, I don't care. If it was up to me to suspend or ban a friend of mine, I'd still do it. The fact I respect someone more than others has nothing to with my job in this forum. The fact I like someone can't undo his actions. Besides people I'd respect in the first place would've likely realized they done something wrong and would've accepted his punishment.

This also applies to real life, unless we've lived at a completely fudged up society. This applies to this forum as well, if the rules here were unfair I'd not have joined the forum or become part of something I don't believe in. I became Staff because I believe in this community. The harmony of this place is something really frail. Actions must be made to preserve it. However when you are in a position of decision making, people will always disagree with you. It's human nature.

So I don't blame you for disagreeing with us. Not at all. However, try to understand if you were on my position you'd have taken the same decision as I have. Because you'd know as much as I know and because you'd care about the well being of this community as much as I do.

Edit: @Boidy.

Edited by Overdose, 06 June 2008 - 01:42.

[Strategia]

C. Boidy, on 6 Jun 2008, 3:36, said:

Chris meant no harm, and he realizes his errors, and he is sorry. And I feel we can trust that this is true, correct me if I am wrong, but he has done no other harm. Thus punishment is unnecessary.

-Boidy

If a convicted criminal repents, is truly sorry and vows never to commit a crime again, he still must serve his time. If punishment can be subverted by saying "I'm really really sorry and I won't ever do it again", then what's the use of punishment in the first place?

ka1000, on 6 Jun 2008, 3:38, said:

from what i have seen, what he said was absolutely not up to par with the example you give there.

Using an extreme example to prove that "merely stating a subjective opinion with no harm intended" can still break the rules.

Quote

i truly believe some people are just being a bit too fanatical about it and want to act important and "correct" by banning on the basis of harmless content like that. mainly to shape the illusion of "justice" and hierarchy probably.

Define "some people". Shape the "illusion" of "justice and hierarchy"? What's that supposed to mean?

[Whitey]

So you wish to treat others fairly because you are at a position above those that are being treated fairly? A tad odd, don't you think. If you wanted fairness, you would vouch for everyone having equal say in what goes on on this forum, but you are not doing so, thus your statement that you wish for equality is false.

-Boidy

[Camille]

@strategia: certain mods are acting important to make it look like there was actual order and justice. which there obviously is'nt. (chris's banning is the proof as many people with agree with)

[E.V.E.]

Actually, it doesn't matter how we act - some guy out there will never be happy with it.
You can not please everybody and this is the Internet - if you dislike something you can just leave, something you can't do in Real Life ( just leaving everything behind you when you're in deep crap that is ).

People here can actually be happy about how we deal with People who brake the rules, because we are trying to run things here as fair as possible. I've been on countless other Forums where Admins would just have banned you just because of disagreeing with them.

If you're fed up with how we run things, then move on to someplace else.

- E.V.E.

[Camille]

im not fed up... im rational.

[Nem]

C. Boidy, on 5 Jun 2008, 21:36, said:

Me, Hobbes, and Swimmer are all Americans and we are defending the guy.

If one person was offended, then justice was served.

C. Boidy, on 5 Jun 2008, 21:36, said:

Chris meant no harm.

Really, Boidy?

[Overdose]

Boidy:

That's not possible. Because that would be anarchy. The system exists for a reason. You think my status would actually save me from a punishment I deserved? Not really? Dam right. I'm more responsible for my actions than regular members. I need to be an example. In fact the system is harsher for me than you. While you people have a safety net called the Warning System. I only have a concrete floor waiting for me if I slip up. Don't think we're privileged, because we're not.

Edited by Overdose, 06 June 2008 - 01:54.

[Strategia]

C. Boidy, on 6 Jun 2008, 3:45, said:

So you wish to treat others fairly because you are at a position above those that are being treated fairly? A tad odd, don't you think. If you wanted fairness, you would vouch for everyone having equal say in what goes on on this forum, but you are not doing so, thus your statement that you wish for equality is false.

-Boidy

It's very much possible to dispense equal treatment from a position above those that receive the treatment - take, for example, judges.

ka1000, on 6 Jun 2008, 3:46, said:

@strategia: certain mods are acting important to make it look like there was actual order and justice. which there obviously is'nt. (chris's banning is the proof as many people with agree with)

The "order" on this forum is Admins > Staffers > members. As for "justice", this is an internet forum, we have rules instead.

ka1000, on 6 Jun 2008, 3:48, said:

im not fed up... im rational.

"there is obviously no actual order and justice because Chris was banned" does not sound objectively rational. It sounds more like an attack on the Staffers.

[Mbob61]

oh my god. This has gotten so out of hand.
No matter who it is, if they commit and offense, they should be subject to the appropriate punishments surely? no matter who they are or what they may have done.
Personally i thought the ban was a little harsh but the Admins/Staffers have asserted the authority they have to keep this place running smoothly.

Mike
P.S i am also a friend of Chris

[Ghostrider]

Chris = Cool Guy. Not gonna add another opinion regarding his ban to simply muddy the waters in this already confusing discussion. That said, however, I think this is a very important topic, and I thank you for bringing it up.

@Boidy: I'm sorry if u don't like the wat thread... I made it just for some brainless fun.

And finally, just need to say to everyone: ReLaX.

[logical2u]

This thread is silly in multiple ways.
NOTE. THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS SUBJECTIVE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS INFORMATION, TAKE TWO TYLENOL AND CALL YOUR DOCTOR IN THE MORNING. OR FLAME ME.

1. There is no possible way this thread can be unbiased. Therefore, there can be no amiable solution. Every person has brought their own opinion to the table, and the opinions are, taken as a random sampling of the main page, divided into two main camps, with scattered neutral parties.

2. The root of the issue is a ban... but it's not a ban... and it's not an instant ban, which is what the issue seems to have been about. So the communication difficulties and the very fact that it is not just one event make it difficult to make properly informed decisions.

3. The very presence of this thread implies that people think that the internet is a democratic society. It is, just not on one site. The internet is capitalism in the extreme: The providers have the control, the surfers typically have none. Wikipedia is no exception, the mod theocracy there is as random and unjust as anywhere else on the internet.

4. This is the internet, where tensions easily run high. As stated previously, the forum is generally divided on the issue, and there appears to be confusion as to the most basic of facts. There cannot be a conclusion that is mutually beneficial, as evidenced early on (the end of Pg 1, for example, with Boidy's post, although I know that is one of many posts that will likely be regretted later).

There is my reasoning as to why this thread is silly and so is the arguing.

Solutions?

1. No solution.
2. A "Ban/block" log, sort of like Wikipedia is one solution. Another is a user based moderating system, also like Wikipedia. Neither is a perfect solution.
3. No solution, although injured parties are free to create their own alternative site.
4. No solution. Maybe we should all have flood control

MY PERSONAL POINT OF VIEW?

If I hadn't seen this thread, I wouldn't have known Chris had been warned. I likely wouldn't have seen the post. I still haven't read it because my points are not raised on Chris or his posts, they are raised on facts and what I have observed in this topic, on the internet, and in real life.
Now, my ignorance is likely shared by many other posters. This topic has in fact probably hurt Chris more than a temporary suspension of posting privileges (or ban) has. Why is this? Because many people would've been blissfully unaware. I don't care what happens, all I know is that this topic made me sad. The ban was temporary, the impact on his reputation that this topic may have caused is much more permanent.

In fact, this topic is only widening an already present divide between certain users and what they see as "Teh Evil Admins" which has been hinted at and in fact made public in other posts. I hope that both parties know who they are when I ask them to kindly drop it: There's already enough drama on the internet without a 'revolution' seemingly in the planning, and distrust growing among those who would have to deal with it. I like this forum. I hate drama.

[Camille]

@strategia: im sorry if things are not very clear when they come from me but i have to think and ponder quite a while before posting as i do not master the english language as you do. the thing is: you mess up what im saying, you turn my words around so they say what you want them to say. i was'nt attacking the staffers. you see things way too big, this thing for starters is one big blown up theatre of false accusations and unimportant chatter IMO.

aargh. i wish i could just say things in dutch... pardon me for that.

[Kichō]

Ghostrider, on 6 Jun 2008, 2:59, said:

Chris = Cool Guy.



[color="#FFA500"]And finally, just need to say to everyone: ReLaX.

LOL^

But yeah I'm a friend of Chris and I've had no problems whatsoever with him, Sure I might be 'newish' but infact I've been E-S around mid 2005 and I know what's been happening and I've seen much worse things than Chris did.

[Nem]

Ghostrider, on 5 Jun 2008, 21:59, said:

Chris = Cool Guy.

I know Chris, he is a cool guy, he does alot for the community, etc.

So? He did wrong, he got punished. He knew he was on the brink of suspension and he did it anyway. Chris thought he was immune to being punished and the staff proved that that was not the case. He is not getting unbanned, even if any of you had a solid argument.

OBJECTION....

OVERRULED.

[Strategia]

ka1000, on 6 Jun 2008, 4:03, said:

@strategia: im sorry if things are not very clear when they come from me but i have to think and ponder quite a while before posting as i do not master the english language as you do. the thing is: you mess up what im saying, you turn my words around so they say what you want them to say. i was'nt attacking the staffers. you see things way too big, this thing for starters is one big blown up theatre of false accusations and unimportant chatter IMO.

I'm sorry if I twisted your words, but that's what I read in your post.

Quote

aargh. i wish i could just say things in dutch... pardon me for that.

Zeg het dan gewoon in het Nederlands

[Sgt. Nuker]

Høbbesy, on 5 Jun 2008, 19:19, said:

Swimmer, Boidy, and myself think that Chris's ban was unfair. So we decided to start a "petition".

If you don't know, we think Chris was banned unjustly for criticizing the staff. This was the reason for the ban. We believe that this was hardly flaming, and the ban was undeserved. So, just post here saying you support us, and hopefully we can unban him.

A few "anonymous" members would also like to see Stinger be demoted from Global Moderator.

So who are you guys to say what the Staff/Admin can do and can't do? Who died and made you the Grand Poobah of the world or the forum for that matter? You tell me where it's written that at any time a member can effect the judgment of the forum chain of command, and I'll back off. Can't do it can you? I thought as much. The only thing you guys have is free speech, and we're all lucky to have that. We could have a forum Admin that's much more strict than the ones we have here. So if you ask me (which I know you're not), you guys should feel lucky you're able to post such a thread. Not that it'll amount to anything, but still, you're able to post this garbage.

"Anonymous" members eh? All that means is it's you three, but you want to make it seem that much more important. If I were you guys, I'd come right out and say it. But then again, I'm not (thankfully). Seriously, what has Stinger done this month, this past two weeks to merit his removal from Global Mod? Or is it the simple fact that he got the promotion and neither of you gents did? I'm not posting to start a war, just merely get you guys to really think this whole thing through. I highly encourage that the post that's made in retort to this be a well developed, and thought out CIVIL argument. If it's not, there's nothing I can, except feel sorry for you.

[Camille]

maar dan verstaat de rest er geen reet van

anyway i think this whole matter got blown-up badly and should be finished soon as there will be no solution for this matter... only opinions.