105 replies to this topic

[Hobbesy]

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.

Edited by Høbbesy, 05 June 2008 - 23:22.

[Dauth]

Since you don'y have access to the staff board, I would be wary if I were you. It is not always a single action that results in a warn increase, but in cases can be the result of a number of breaches of the rules.

[Whitey]

I think Chris was banned for other reasons.

But I still find it unjust. I will also not tie myself to those that wish to see demotions in order. I will reserve my opinions on moderators to myself only.

-Boidy

Edited by C. Boidy, 05 June 2008 - 23:24.

[Soul]

WEN was Chris banned?

[G-sus]

if really just this was the reason (for what i dont have any proof) then i´d say its unjust.
dont know if there wasnt anything else though.

[E.V.E.]

People should be sure to have all Information aquired that is needed in order to pull stuff like this through and hope to end it to their favor.

- E.V.E.

[Whitey]

 Soul, on 5 Jun 2008, 18:23, said:

WEN was Chris banned?

Today

And there was other criteria for the ban as well.
On that note: I would like to request further information as to why. I know Chris doesn't mind, and I'm not asking for names of who brought up what about him, but it would be nice to know why exactly.

-Boidy

Edited by C. Boidy, 05 June 2008 - 23:26.

[Soul]

*Looks at Chris and his profile*
It doesn't say he's banned, wtf is going on?

[E.V.E.]

It only says " banned " when you are banned for ever.
You get " Suspended " when you have a 66% Warn level.

- E.V.E.

[CodeCat]

It's standard procedure for people to receive a 2-week suspension when their warn level reaches 2/3. He'll be able to return in 2 weeks' time.

[Hobbesy]

 CodeCat, on 5 Jun 2008, 18:28, said:

It's standard procedure for people to receive a 2-week suspension when their warn level reaches 2/3. He'll be able to return in 2 weeks' time.

And why was he warned?

[Soul]

 E.V.E., on 5 Jun 2008, 19:27, said:

It only says " banned " when you are banned for ever.
You get " Suspended " when you have a 66% Warn level.

- E.V.E.

It says neither when I look at his profile, it just says Project leaders still.

I'm still confused as to what's happening.

[Whitey]

@CodeCat We are quite aware of this, but the general consensus of these folk is that he ought to be unbanned immediately, as I'm sure you have noticed.

-Boidy

Edited by C. Boidy, 05 June 2008 - 23:31.

[Jok3r]

Ok, can I say something that has kinda come up in our discussion?

So, no, we don't really know if that was the only thing. I've seen a couple slightly inflammatory posts by Chris in recent times. I'll admit, none of us are perfect, and Chris was a little out of line. But come on. Banning him for this? I know its only a temp ban, but this smacks of some sort of *gasp* staff favoritism. Ok, I don't want to be presumptious here, but it seems kinda clear that perhaps certain people here are not fond of chris. He makes an ever so slightly inflammatory post, and what happens? Bam, 2 week ban.

With no regrets,
Swimmer

EDIT: Section deleted, because I made a mistake. New information has come to light (AKA, you only get that when perma banned) so I got rid of that. I apologize to those I insulted with that section, but the remainder of the post stands

Edited by The Swimmer, 05 June 2008 - 23:35.

[Slightly Wonky Robob]

I would hardly call 3-4 people "general consensus"...

[Dauth]

Only moderators+ can see other people's warn levels, Chris can see his own, he was warned some time ago and we hadn't found it suitable to reduce his warn when this happened and he got a second warn. He will remain a project leader throughout the suspension and his return, only a full ban will change that.

Edit: Swimmer, I don't take kindly to being accused of favouritism, at least in the wrong way, I am friends with Chris and don't like seeing him suspended, but rules are rules. For everyone.

Edited by Dauth, 05 June 2008 - 23:34.

[E.V.E.]

 Soul, on 6 Jun 2008, 1:30, said:

 E.V.E., on 5 Jun 2008, 19:27, said:

It only says " banned " when you are banned for ever.
You get " Suspended " when you have a 66% Warn level.

- E.V.E.

It says neither when I look at his profile, it just says Project leaders still.

I'm still confused as to what's happening.

Sorry, with that I didn't mean the part that is shown under the User Name.
My fault.

- E.V.E.

[Hobbesy]

 Bob, on 5 Jun 2008, 18:31, said:

I would hardly call 3-4 people "general consensus"...

It is when there are 9 main moderators.

[CodeCat]

We're not going to announce every single ban. It's up to the person involved to deal with it.

[Hobbesy]

 CodeCat, on 5 Jun 2008, 18:33, said:

We're not going to announce every single ban. It's up to the person involved to deal with it.

Unjust bans are wrong either way.

[Whitey]

 Bob, on 5 Jun 2008, 18:31, said:

I would hardly call 3-4 people "general consensus"...

Protip: Read moar.

Anyway, I don't see the harm in Chris having a public defense.

-Boidy

Edited by C. Boidy, 05 June 2008 - 23:36.

[Libains]

IMO - it's really his own fault - the last post was over-the-top and hence it resulted in a warning level increase - whether the person knew this increase would lead to a suspension is his/her problem. SImple fact, he could have been un-suspended, but he wasn't. Hence - the staff etc have decided that he will remain so, and it is his problem for getting two warnings. There not really much that will be done to change this - so how's about a reduced sentence of one week - it still has effect and yet will bring him back sooner. That's my little addition.

No sides taken, btw.

~AjPod

[Strategia]

I must admit I'm seeing increasing amounts of hostility between the Staff and the rest of the forum lately, mainly from the general population to the yellow-, orange- and red-badged ones. I honestly don't know why.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall a much more convivial cohabitation until approximately late last year.

As for Chris' ban, that post was hardly inflammatory - however, if it's a combination of this and earlier posts, I do agree a warn would be justified. And at the end of the day, it's the Staff's decision anyway - ES may be a public forum, but it is (neutral statement of fact, not criticism or hostility) not a democracy.

As for reduced sentencing: Why? What makes Chris' case so very different from others? Why should he get preferential treatment? (Also, if I'm reading E.V.E.'s post right, it happens automatically at the second warn.)

Edited by Strategia™©, 05 June 2008 - 23:39.

[Hobbesy]

 AjPod, on 5 Jun 2008, 18:36, said:

IMO - it's really his own fault - the last post was over-the-top and hence it resulted in a warning level increase - whether the person knew this increase would lead to a suspension is his/her problem. SImple fact, he could have been un-suspended, but he wasn't. Hence - the staff etc have decided that he will remain so, and it is his problem for getting two warnings. There not really much that will be done to change this - so how's about a reduced sentence of one week - it still has effect and yet will bring him back sooner. That's my little addition.

No sides taken, btw.

~AjPod

How was this over the top? It was hardly flaming.

[Whitey]

@AjPod You bloody suckup, you know what is being discussed is that the staff might just be in the wrong. It does happen, even to the best of us.

"In Topic: The Wat Thread
This fad is worst than Kacen"

Is that all too over the top, by the way? I should think not. The fad is pretty terrible.

-Boidy

Edited by C. Boidy, 05 June 2008 - 23:40.