Reopening thread for Cbox Rule discussion.
EDIT: Split from forum rules topic.
Again, there really shouldn't be separate rules for the forum and cbox. The cbox is part of the forums, after all. What we need are stricter rules. I'm sure we're all sick of zman's "OMFG JAPAN IS GOING TO DIE IN A NUCLEAR ECKSPLOWSHUN" crap, and we've all asked him to stop. Yet... he just won't shut up about it. It was bad enough when he made Jupiter Clan business public and decided to claim "I'm both clinically retarted and have a 160 IQ at the same time" nonsense to excuse his horrible posting at the time (need I remind everyone that since we kicked him out of the clan, his posts have dramatically improved.
The thing is, I don't now what the new rule should be per se, but you know this type of person when you see them - they continue on and on, slamming everyone who disagrees with them while spouting out their own crazy stuff publicly for all to see (even I shut up, you know? Hell, I'll even apologize and admit when I was wrong...), when it gets as bad as he's getting...
We just need some kind of rule about quality or something to prevent this kind of thing... I just don't know how to really put it, though...
I vote that rules applied to the board also apply to the c-box. After all, with the c-box as is, people can get away with pretty much anything and not get reprimanded. If you include the c-box as a part of the forum and the rules as well, then we can avoid situations like what's been happening.
How about a verbal warning system like the rest of the site?
(only verbal warnings are via PM, so it won't get lost in the c-box flow)
I dunno, I think the punishments need to be a bit more strict. For one, I never seem to get the PM warnings you speak of, and when I DID send a warning to zman about breaking clan rules, he exploded and made it public, saying we were 'diskrimonatn' him.
The problem though is that, even though Zman has definitely been abusing the Cbox, it's there to allow for off topic discussion. A lot of my shouts are one-word if I don't feel like saying anything. It's meant to be looser.
Zman's on the end of both me and Atrius's tether, way more than anyone else. I really will consider a good week ban if he decides to spam up the Cbox after the rule changes are officially announced.
Off topic isn't the same as alt rules, though. The only rule it doesn't follow is the on-topic rule, because it doesn't have one.
Also, on week won't be enough. You need to give him a serious slap in the face if push comes to shove - at least a month. Like I said, even I'm not that bad...
All and all, I vote for making the rules a little more strict here. I don't mean nazi bad, but at least have a cbox-specific rule that says "If the public wants to move on from a conversation and you won't, expect some kind of punishment" or something like that...
For once i completely agree with Role :)
I too agree with this.
Hmm, you mean topic changing rules? :/ hmmm, okay, I suppose, but it should be enforced only when people request a topic to be closed. Sometimes people respond to stuff several shouts behind and all... anything past 2 pages in the archive is unacceptable though.
I think they mean with the punishment severity.
Yea.
Yes, the punishment. Not the topic.
First of all, I don't like how this topic degraded into bashing one specific members actions. Secondly, before you propose a new rule ask yourself "How easily can this be abused against someone who's done nothing wrong?"
Atrius, the thing is, several people, even admin, have asked him to stop, and he responded by insulting them and continuing. Check the cbox for more info on this, but basically the argument here is that we need to apply the rules to the cbox as well, on top of probably having stricter enforcement. The rule about the cbox thing was basically if a majority of people want to change topic and you keep going on, you can get warned. Several warnings from the mods/admin and it'd be a week ban or something.
But outright insulting multiple members, and even an admin? That's already against the rules.
You want the rules enforced more strictly, alright let's look at what happened, and see who deserves to be punished.
[spoiler=Zman's impressions on Japan]
Quote from: Zmanthe Japanese are so dumb! 3-mile-island was a 4 out of 7 on the nuclear disaster scale, and no radition leeked at all and no one died! and the japanese are saying what they have is only level 3. Thats bull-s***! 3-mile-island evac zone = 1 mile! japan evac zone = 50 miles with 18.5 miles covered with deadly radition! Also this could all been pervented if they had just seeled the reactors sooner. but now they can't get close enuff to stop it now!
Note that when the U.S bombed japan with two nukes that was only considered a 6 out of 7! Also note that a 5 out of ten is when radition leeks! And lastly note that at least two reactors have exploded which means that two of them are now open two the air! I am mad at the stupidness of the worlds nuclear engineers!
And lastly some facts of what would happen if even one of the reactors were to fully melt down. first ly when they fully melt down they will start burning at the temp of the sun, next the core would vaporize every thing it touches for about two weeks, it would then (depending on howhard the ground is over in japan) melt a hole in the ground any where from 1000 feet to 1000 miles into the ground. The after affect would be that the evac zone in japan would be unliveable for about 500 to 1000 years
[/spoiler]
Zman: Presenting his perspective on the situation in Japan not breaking any rules.
[spoiler=Initial reactions]
Quote from: SalanewtHow would that make the Japanese dumb? Unlike the tragedy at Chernobyl, the Japanese understand what has to be done in order to protect their citizens - I believe they have already evacuated? Also, I think reactors 1 and 3 exploded if I recall. Exactly what Nero said - he watches MSNBC.
Also, 1000 miles is probably close to a half of the width of the US, minus Hawaii and Alaska. That would be a pretty big crater...
And that would nearly be a quarter of the radius of Earth. Which news sources are you using?
Quote from: MegaDarkNero@Sala: He's using the Blind Idiot News Network, obviously.
How could he be so dumb? He's overreacting too much, nothing like that'll never happen.
Quote from: leafgreen386is zman still being dumb? I stopped reading his posts a while ago
Quote from: Role@Sala: Exactly what Nero said - he watches MSNBC.
[/spoiler]
Salanewt: Harmlessly debating
MegaDarkNero: Direct insults, breaking rule II.1 concerning disrespecting other members.
leafgreen386: Also being disrespectful
Role: Harmless comment
[spoiler=Zman's response]
Quote from: ZmanI didn't mean a 1000 mile wide crater!!! a one foot wide crater 1000 miles deep! its totaly possible. think for a minute... a melt down is basicly a uncontroled nuclear reaction. to cool a reactor core takes about 1000 years because they have it lose its energy over that amount of time so it doesn't get so hot as to start to meld down. If it were to melt down it lose all its energy in about a week but would be as hot as the sun for that time.
think of it like this: a nuclear bomb loses all of its energy at once and is hoter then the sun. now imagon that a chunk of the sun that would last 1 week and was about 1 foot a round. if you were to drop it on the ground it would just keep going. it wouldn't just drop through the ground like nothing was there but it would keep melting through for about a week or two. My bro said he read this some where as well and it had happend before ( but not like this, it was some kind of test in the 50s )
[/spoiler]
Zman: Harmless debating, whether it's accurate or not hardly matters, nothing offensive toward other members and no rules broken.
[spoiler=Another reaction from MegaDarkNero]
Quote from: MegaDarkNeroZman, please leave the internet before people go insane trying to understand what you're talking about.
[/spoiler]
MegaDarkNero - Disrespectful once again.
[spoiler=Reaction from Zman]
Quote from: ZmanUgg.... how can I explain this for you to understant.... ( WHEN BALL GET HOT IT MELT THROUGH DIRT ) ( It melt dirt for week) (may travle 1000 feet to 1000 miles down) And I am not making any of this stuff up. I don't under stand how you guys can't under stand that when the core melts down it gets hot!!! very hot!! Like I said when I first joined "I know alot about stuff the doesn't mater in normal life like how nuclear reactors work"
Well since nuclear physics is to complated for most people to under stand I will ask some thing else. I am trying to draw a Rose using Typography, any tips on how to make the whole think go a little faster are gladly welcome. thanks
[/spoiler]
Zman: Frustrated, but still not disrespecting anyone.
[spoiler=Members reactions to Zman's response]
Quote from: RoleCan we please have a new rule that allows banishment for stupidity? This is really starting to get on my nerves.
Quote from: leafgreeen386I support this motion.
Quote from: OverLordKainIf you imagine him as the little old lady from Police Academy, it's actually quite adorable.
Quote from: RoleNo. That just makes me want to punch old ladies.
Quote from: OverLordKainYeah...bad use on my part.
[/spoiler]
No attempts to counter Zman's conceptions, just more insulting his intelligence all around.
[spoiler=Zman getting frustrated]
Quote from: Zmanif you are banning for stupidity then I will be fine, but Role, Leaf, and Kain would have to go because I am right and you are wrong. What I have said is the truth and if you don't agree, to bad because that is how the world works. if you are really to stupied to understand what I said then you should just leave. P.P I am f***ing done with being nice to stupied people!
[/spoiler]
Understandably frustrated, at this point I would very much say he'd been provoked. Still, we can chalk up 1 offense for him, compared to the 4~5 by other people in the conversation so far.
At this point the conversation degraded into even more insulting Zman, with him later responding:
Quote from: Zmangod whats your problem! How is this gona work! just because some people think one person is wrong you would ban them??? so then you ban some one, then you find out they are right, what happens then?? this is just crazy!! I just come on to tell you whats happing and what could happen and you get mad!?! you are all freeking nuts!
Again, understandably frustrated, and provoked anger. This time there are no offenses though. The next few posts talk about applying the forum rules to the cBox, with the next response from Zman being the following:
Quote from: Zmanalso I never said japan would become unlive-able! @charon (why does every body make up stuff to make me look bad!) p.s i said some of japan will become unlive-able. @momo... wait what?!?! I thought we did something about that?? ........................................................ I not sure what to say....
fine I have come up with the simplest way to explain it: basicly the core will (if not cooled down) melt down. and will most likly melt doen because there is so much radition around the reactor that can't get to it. 18.5 miles out from it are covered with enuff radition to kill a person in an hour. if this does not stop soon that area WILL become unliveable. (this is the just of what i have said the other stuff dosn't matter because you won't under stand yet!)
Harmless debating, no offenses.
So, tell me, how is Zman at fault here? Look at yourselves, people, you provoked him barely even getting any backlash, and you're talking about punishing him for this? What the hell is going on here, do you all not even realize that your conceptions toward Zman are causing you to behave like complete asses for no real reason? As far as I'm concerned Zman is off the hook for this one, MegaDarkNero, leafgreen, Role, Overlord Kain, and Charon, I'm issuing a warning to all of you. If anyone deserves to be punished over this it is you, Zman has done absolutely nothing wrong here.
Atrius, this has been going on for a WEEK now, and many people have asked him to stop. He's been trying everyone's patience. And yet you're warning all of us?
Need I remind you what happened the last time you jumped to his defense?
You all broke the rules this time, he didn't. Hence you all get warned he doesn't. Ain't no rule against pushing a debate everyone disagrees with you on, and even if it were it doesn't justify what all of you did to him today, what happened earlier this week is irrelevant in this case. Show me, show me where he broke a rule without being provoked concerning this ongoing debate, and I'll consider it as a separate case but it still doesn't justify what you all did to him.
Very well, if you want proof, then it will come.
Role......Drop it please. We dont need an all out war over something idiotic like this. Just drop it and leave it alone. Im not exactly saying you were in the wrong. But im not saying Zman was either. That is for atrius, not me to decide. Stop before it gets worse.
It's irrelevant what happened earlier this week at this point, none of that got reported, this argument today did make it to me. TODAY zman did absolutely nothing wrong without being provoked, and yet everyone else is breaking the rules disrespecting him and trying to escalate it to the point of talking about a ban for him. That is not the way things work, that is not how you deal with members that you think are causing problems.
The fact is that all of you broke the rules today, he did not, there is no way that I'm considering punishing him under these circumstances whether he deserves it or not. If you want him punished for things he did wrong then report them properly, don't starting ganging up on him and breaking the rules yourselves. If you do that it's hardly fair if he's the only one that get's punished, in other words if all of you break the rules all of you get punished with him. If you think someone deserves to be punished handle it properly without breaking the rules yourselves.
Hey, Momiji, just a word of advice, but maybe you should stay out of this. Heck, I've been here longer; I know that when things like this happen, it's better to let the others fight it out. Whoever still cares will fight it out and it will get a conclusion. If you jump in, it'll be like running in front of a tank thinking you can stop it. I know you want to help, and I dont want your effort to end up in you getting hurt, okay?
Also, please, if you have a reply to this, take it to PM with me so we dont take up any more space on the battleground, alright?
This is my reasoning for my actions:
Over the last few months, I've noticed a large amount of complaints about Zman from several members. I have read through his posts and many of them can be either very agressive towards other members, or are just spam. Recently he took to the Cbox and produced many messages about the nuclear crisis in Japan. Now, most of these I wouldn't consider "spam" but I told him to redirect the messages to another thread, and told him to be more formal about it, citing evidence, or else he would recieve a ban; however, he did not comply and tried to use the Cbox as a self-defence mechanism and thus, through accounts of direct insubordination and continuous spam throughout the forum for the previous months, he received a ban. His knowledge of the crisis or lack thereof had no relevance.
Considering that I am essentially an assistant administrator, you do have the final say in this. However, I find it important for you to understand my reasoning for my actions.
Let me get this straight: This whole thing was caused by zman constantly bringing up blatantly incorrect material about the earthquake, to which he was told - numerous times - that we knew what he was saying was wrong, and was asked to stop it. When he did not stop, several members got understandably frustrated and because of that are now receiving the punishment instead of the instigator. This is despite the fact that he continued long after being told to stop, which can only be considered intentional provocation and a form of trolling.
Of the quotes you pulled, you pulled two where I was being "disrespectful." I ask you, why does a troll deserve my respect? By this point I had long since determined that zman was probably a troll, and handled him as such. My responses to being trolled are to either 1) counter-troll, or 2) make a minimum effort in letting the troll know that I don't care, then proceeding to ignore said troll. If you still believe response #2 is infraction-worthy on the account of being "disrespectful," please,
do inform me what he did to deserve my respect to begin with. (Hint: "existing" is not an answer.)
However, even if he actually
wasn't just a troll, does it really make a difference? I would like it to be clear that I was not kidding around about making "stupidity" a bannable offense. In the grand scheme of things, even
if zman did genuinely believe what he was typing (which by this point I sincerely doubt), the end result is nearly identical to a very good troll. If a member is constantly provoking other members, either intentionally or unintentionally, and the other members are baited into responding, are those members truly at fault? Or is it the fault of the instigator? What we have here is a case of the forum at large falling prey to a troll, getting understandably pissed off, and then the troll somehow making it out unscathed. If a
single member is causing chaos within the forum, such that it makes coming here an unenjoyable event for many of the members,
it is in the forum's best interest as a whole to remove the impeding factor (in this case, zman).
QuoteIt's irrelevant what happened earlier this week at this point, none of that got reported, this argument today did make it to me. TODAY zman did absolutely nothing wrong without being provoked, and yet everyone else is breaking the rules disrespecting him and trying to escalate it to the point of talking about a ban for him. That is not the way things work, that is not how you deal with members that you think are causing problems.
The fact is that all of you broke the rules today, he did not, there is no way that I'm considering punishing him under these circumstances whether he deserves it or not. If you want him punished for things he did wrong then report them properly, don't starting ganging up on him and breaking the rules yourselves. If you do that it's hardly fair if he's the only one that get's punished, in other words if all of you break the rules all of you get punished with him. If you think someone deserves to be punished handle it properly without breaking the rules yourselves.
Irrelevant? The entire cause for the events that took place yesterday has actually been one huge ongoing event; zman has been in the red for a full week now. Do you know why no one reported it? Because most likely, everyone figured he would eventually shut up, and that they could deal with it until then. Furthermore, they may have doubted that any action would actually be taken. It is only when it got to the point of being excessive that people snapped. By only looking at quotes from the previous day, you saw only the result of a week's worth of trolling, to which it might appear that the other members were provoking him, when in actuality it was the exact opposite; much of what you called "harmless debating" on the part of zman should not be considered "harmless" in the slightest. I have already made my views apparent that I believe zman is nothing more than a troll, and that even if he is not, his effect on the forum is that of one. Trolls can slip under the radar for a while, which is why it took so long for the matter to escalate to people talking about bans. Letting zman off the hook while punishing the members that had to put up with him is, once again, a result of only looking at the end effect and not the root cause.
With all that said, allow me to explain what each of the members were really doing in those quotes you pulled:
Zman: Trolling. In every single one of his posts. I've made this point enough times already, so I'm not going to repeat what I said earlier, but additionally, from quote 5, specifically, I feel the need to point out that if you read it closely, you'll see he actually
is being "disrespectful," according to your own qualifications of breaking the rules. He phrases the second entry as if the people he was speaking to were morons, and as if he was somehow above the rest of the forum.
Sala: Being trolled, but he's too nice to just tell zman to shut up like the others.
Nero: Being trolled, giving the troll a full reaction multiple times.
From quote 6, specifically:
Role: Fed up with his trolling, but without any definitive way to prove that he is in fact trolling.
Me: Agreeing, and in full support of a rule against blatant stupidity.
Kain and Role: Joking around, making light of the situation.
Also on the matter of quote 6:
No effort was made to counter his absurd claims was for that very reason: they were absurd. We had already tried arguing with him, which if you had read through everything that happened, you would have seen that it got us nowhere. While I cannot speak for the others with certainty, I would venture a guess that no one involved in this part of the conversation actually cared to try to correct him at this point because they realized
it would be entirely fruitless. You're getting on them for "disrespect," when really, what better could the members be doing than making light of the situation when faced with a troll?
Although charon was not actually in any of the quotes you pulled, she was originally trying to patiently correct him, but zman tried even her patience. Finally, after the following exchange and having already let zman know that the forum rules were now applicable to the cbox:
Quote
Yesterday at 10:48:01 PM - Role - He already said it. MSNBC.
Yesterday at 10:50:43 PM - zman9000 - well since role called me stupid I started watching fox as well and all of what i have said today is from fox.
Yesterday at 10:52:38 PM - Charon the Ferryman - Well I 'spose you'll be watching them a lot more for a while, eh?
Yesterday at 10:55:38 PM - Role - Again, I call everyone stupid. You're nothing special. Still, even CNN is better than MSNBC. And Fox did not say that stuff - I'd know, I'M WATCHING IT.
Charon banned him. This quote clearly shows that zman was making up everything he was saying, and hugely supports my claim that he has in fact been trolling this entire time.
Can I just say, does it really matter if his points were right / wrong / off.
From what I read it seems it seems to me that it truly is what he believes. Whether he was correct or not, he was stating his mind on what he thought was the truth, So its nothing more than a debate. defo not a troll.
+ He's been here months, If he were a troll, why would he choose this moment to "troll" the community
The thing is, when you're asked repeatedly to stop, and you keep going, it can easily be interpreted as trolling.
Actually i kind of agree with that analysis.
Quote from: Atrius on 18, March, 2011, 04:16:10 AM
It's irrelevant what happened earlier this week
So the main reason for everyone else to get mad
yesterday, caused by a
week of dealing with the cause of their frustration means nothing? Forget the cause, pay all attention to the results? You're jumping in to aid zman but not giving us the chance to properly defend ourselves! This has been ongoing for awhile and a few of his posts are even condescending and rude to the members before yesterday's events even happened.
QuoteYesterday at 10:48:01 PM - Role - He already said it. MSNBC.
Yesterday at 10:50:43 PM - zman9000 - well since role called me stupid I started watching fox as well and all of what i have said today is from fox.
Yesterday at 10:52:38 PM - Charon the Ferryman - Well I 'spose you'll be watching them a lot more for a while, eh?
Yesterday at 10:55:38 PM - Role - Again, I call everyone stupid. You're nothing special. Still, even CNN is better than MSNBC. And Fox did not say that stuff - I'd know, I'M WATCHING IT.
THIS effectively states that everything zman has stated was false and/or made up. I'm calling him on trolling. Seriously. I can even pull up quotes where Charon told him to get his facts straight before posting anything.
QuoteYesterday at 03:30:28 PM - Charon the Ferryman - the 50 mile radius was from the US Embassy, not Japan; the 18 mile radius was that suggested by Japan, and the amounts releaesed is way less than Chernobyl... Three Mile wasn't even a meltdown either... btw have no idea where you're getting "3" from because most sources are saying "6". so kindly stfu and read up a wee more on what's actually happening kthnx
Granted, there are things that shouldn't have been said in there, but that should be testament to how agitated Charon was getting with the situation.
QuoteYesterday at 10:20:46 PM - zman9000 - fine I have come up with the simplest way to explain it:
QuoteMarch 14, 2011, 12:55:10 AM - zman9000 - also before you complain again you should serch the history of nuclear meltdowns
QuoteYesterday at 06:52:10 PM - zman9000 - Well since nuclear physics is to complated for most people to under stand I will ask some thing else.
QuoteMarch 17, 2011, 06:46:52 PM - zman9000 - Ugg.... how can I explain this for you to understant....
And the couple of times he's taken a stab at members intelligence. You say what happened during the week is irrelevant. I'm telling you it's not and everything ties together.
My quote now...really? A crack at his intelligence? It COULD be taken that way I suppose but my intention was a joke to lighten the mood, not stir up any more problems. If I wanted to take a crack at his intelligence, I'd do something much more clever.
Quote from: MaxiPower on 18, March, 2011, 07:03:55 PM
Can I just say, does it really matter if his points were right / wrong / off.
From what I read it seems it seems to me that it truly is what he believes. Whether he was correct or not, he was stating his mind on what he thought was the truth, So its nothing more than a debate. defo not a troll.
+ He's been here months, If he were a troll, why would he choose this moment to "troll" the community
^ This is what I believe.
I understand that Zman is a problem member, and that he does stir up trouble all on his own sometimes. If you're going to ban him for that then ban him for
that, don't escalate something he's doing that isn't against the rules into the final straw for a ban. I'm saying that what happened earlier this week is irrelevant to
this particular incident, if he did break the rules earlier add it to the list. I'm sure there probably is enough on there to justify a ban, but I still don't like how things ended up escalating into him actually getting one. I don't believe he was trolling, I think he actually believes what he's saying, and just because you find it annoying that he keeps bringing it up, whether his points are wrong or not,
it is not against the rules. You can't ban members just because they're being annoying, that doesn't even justify a formal warning, it shouldn't be the final straw in deciding a ban. It bothers me that virtually the entire community ganged up on him like that, and actually successfully escalated it to that point when he wasn't doing anything other than being annoying at the time.
Atrius. That's what we did. It's the chain of events that got him banned, not just one single incident. That just was the straw that broke the camel's back.
It's the same with me and forum games - it wasn't forum games itself that caused me to go into that fit of rage back then - it was everything leading up to it. That was just the one thing that made me snap.
Quote from: Atrius on 21, March, 2011, 12:43:42 AMYou can't ban members just because they're being annoying, that doesn't even justify a formal warning, it shouldn't be the final straw in deciding a ban.
Atrius, being annoying is one thing. Insulting our intelligence on a regular basis for disagreeing is something else entirely. Stop only reading his posts one way.
Another thing I'd like to add - just because Charon admittedly jumped the gun on getting absolute evidence for banishment - causing only a minor temp ban rather than the permaban we actually wanted - doesn't mean you can come in here and scream "ZMAN IS OFF THE HOOK AGAIN, EVERYONE ELSE IS IN TROUBLE". Look, this is the second time he's done something that's ticked people off to the point that they ACTUALLY ENFORCE THE RULES, something that might I add, is rarely done on this forum, but you're rushing to his aid like he's your best friend or something.
The thing is, you CANNOT ignore everything he did. He broke the rules many many times, we're only just now FINALLY enforcing them like we should have in the first place. It's not like we have a strict global mod who'll slam the hammer down at first infraction anymore, you know. Jamie's been largely MIA, and when he did show up, actually did have his hands full modding zman's posts. If you go back and look, it was about the time we kicked him out of Jupiter and you rushed to his aid without viewing the full picture.
This is very much like that. Instead of only a clan, though, this affects the whole site.
Please show me where he insulted your intelligence for disagreeing WITH HIS OPINIONS ON JAPAN, not anything from the past which is, again, irrelevant to this conversation. Please make sure to do it with a quote where he had not been provoked beforehand. Also, I'm having difficulty finding anywhere where someone told him to stop talking about it, if someone could show me that I would appreciate it as well.
I'm not questioning Zman's past, I know he's a problem member, you don't have to prove that to me. I'm questioning why this incident is the one that led to him getting banned. I've read all of it, from back when posts firsts started appearing in the cbox about what's happening in Japan, and I don't see him insulting anyone in this incident aside from that one time when he had clearly been provoked. Maybe I'm missing something, but is it not possible that you're allowing your opinions on him from what he's done in the past cloud your judgement?
ITT: Atrius doesn't read posts that disagree with him and side with Role instead.
And as far as you questioning it... Clearly you've not been listening to us. The reason that it lead to him getting banned is that we'd had it and decided to ACTUALLY ENFORCE THE RULES.
You know. Like I said IN MY LAST POST.
I've read them, they're all based on the assumption that he was trolling, hence:
Quote from: AtriusMaybe I'm missing something, but is it not possible that you're allowing your opinions on him from what he's done in the past cloud your judgement?
Like I said in my post before your last post: Just because someone has been a problem in the past doesn't mean you can ban them later when they're just being annoying without breaking any rules.
Look, here's the gist. When we called him on his BS claim, he started talking down to us and providing more BS facts. We're NOT falling for that, Atrius. Do you take us for idiots? Look at all of our posts. It is HEAVILY IMPLIED that we want him to stop. We do everything short of just flat out telling him to shut up. Not only that, but through Rule 3.1 ALONE we have the right to do this. His comments regularly are in horrible grammar and spelling - he doesn't even try to fix it most of the time.
In fact, if we point it out and ask him to make better posts, he still continues to berate us and claim he has some kind of immunity to the rule. And while yes, his posts ARE better, between the cumulative horrible ones he made in the past, along with the more recent bad-but-not-as-bad ones he's made, that's temp-bannable. And YES, he has been warned many times. By both Jamie and Charon IIRC.
I was HOPING that Charon wouldn't ban him, though - not until he did an offense that was perma-bannable. That's where I'll disagree with Charon banning him - it was premature, and thus a slap on the wrist. Still, by the rules, it is allowed. MY PM ALONE spelled this out to you - just how many rules he's broken.
I give up. Im not even going to say a damn word anymore. Role you get banned, its YOUR problem. I wont help you, and i wont care.
Momi, stay out of this, it does not concern you. If you have nothing to actually contribute to the issue at hand, then don't post here.
You may also want to check the rules on staying on topic, typing in decent English, respecting forum members, and not using profanity on the boards - it's quite ironic that you're breaking those rules in the rules topic.
Not your problem Momo. PLEASE stay out of this. Your latest comment was extremely uncalled for along with giving Role negatives on every single one of her posts.
@Momo, there's no need to worry for Role's sake, I wouldn't ban someone over this. Do mind yourself though, there's no need to add fuel to the fire.
It's pretty much impossible to prove whether or not he actually believed what he was saying, arguing that topic is likely to get us nowhere. We should probably just agree to disagree...
There was no rule saying he had to stop discussing it if people told him to, even if there were people would have actually had to do so for it to be enforced. There has to be a line drawn somewhere though, and if it's just implied it could be argued that it was misinterpreted, or missed completely. If we're going to actually make it a rule, we need to make sure it can't be abused, and this would be dangerous precedent to allow that, y'know?
As far as his grammar, and spelling: The rules under part 3 are just "guidelines for having a friendly forum experience" they're not even punishable at all unless broken to extreme excess. He may not try to fix his grammar and spelling, but I doubt he tries to mess it up on purpose either. It's not like his posts are completely illegible so quoting this as a reason for a ban is kind of pulling at threads.
I'm not debating whether or not he deserved a ban overall, I'm debating whether this incident should have justified pulling the trigger.
Atrius, she's not worrying over me. She's
bashing me. I told some others and they rushed to counter her trying to lower respect to all the posts I've made in the thread, rather than just the one she's replying to, as is supposed to be done. Stop assuming the best of everyone and
please see what's right in front of you.
Quote from: AtriusThey're not even punishable at all unless broken to extreme excess
Quote from: AtriusThey're not even punishable at all unless broken to extreme excess
Quote from: AtriusThey're not even punishable at all unless broken to extreme excess
You... you ARE reading what you're posting, right?
That's what gives us the reason to temp-ban him.
Again, it's only enough for a small temp-ban, which is
not what I, and many others wanted. We're not here discussing whether or not Charon jumped the gun - that's pretty much agreed upon. We ARE complaining that
you are letting him off scott free while slamming us for trying to use the rules to stop a situation from getting worse than it already was. Definitely not a way to lead a forum, IMO.
Quote from: RoleAtrius, she's not worrying over me. She's bashing me. I told some others and they rushed to counter her trying to lower respect to all the posts I've made in the thread, rather than just the one she's replying to, as is supposed to be done. Stop assuming the best of everyone and please see what's right in front of you.
*sigh* There are no rules governing the respect system, it is entirely opinion based, and people can use it however they wish. There is no way for you to know who it was that altered your respect, or why. If I continue to get complaints about people "poking each other" my only option to fix it will be to remove the system entirely.
Temp-ban him for spelling, and grammar? Really? We are not Nazi's of that particular variety.
Using it and abusing it are two different things. We do need a set of rules on how to use it properly, IMO. Also, stop ignoring the fact that she was attacking me with the actual post. The respect thing is a minor thing, yelling at me like that is another.
And no, we're not Nazi's of that particular variety, but mainly because we don't enforce the rules much anyways. However, when push comes to shove, we can use that rule for those who violate it, Atrius. The rules are very lax on this site, so when a situation like this comes up, to preform an actual retro-active punishment can actually be a viable option for dealing with it. That's how I got my power removed, remember? It's the cumulative things that'd happened, not just once incident. You yourself have pulled this with other rules - just saying one rule is a lesser rule because you want it to be shouldn't be the case.
QuoteIt's pretty much impossible to prove whether or not he actually believed what he was saying, arguing that topic is likely to get us nowhere. We should probably just agree to disagree...
While it may be impossible at this point to actually prove whether or not he believed what he's saying (although I do think that one quote I included near the end of my previous post gives adequate reason to believe he may not be as innocent as he seems), as I have stated already, it does not matter. Whether he was a troll or genuinely believed what he said and genuinely typed that poorly, it does not matter. Either way, his effect on the forum is the same, and highly negative at that. If you look at his actions as trolling, they were most certainly banworthy. Why should his punishment be any different just because he may not have been trolling?
Quote from: Atrius on 21, March, 2011, 04:18:22 AM
We are not Nazi's of that particular variety.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgnIjJexut4&feature=player_detailpage#t=618s
Quote from: leafgreen386Either way, his effect on the forum is the same, and highly negative at that. If you look at his actions as trolling, they were most certainly banworthy. Why should his punishment be any different just because he may not have been trolling?
This. This is what bothers me about this whole situation.
"Why should his punishment be any different just because he may not have been trolling?"
Why shouldn't we punish people who didn't break a rule? Because we are not Nazi's of that particular variety.
"Either way, his effect on the forum is the same, and highly negative at that."
People don't like him, and he can be annoying at times, yes. You shouldn't ban people for that, but apparently we are Nazi's of that particular variety.
You assume he didn't, that's the thing! You blatantly ignore everything that is rule breaking in his posts, and that's what's infuriating us right now! You even have the balls to claim he did nothing wrong, when even YOU have said he's been causing problems! It's not just that we didn't like him, it's that he was actively disrupting the forum, something EVEN I HAVE BEEN TEMP BANNED FOR, Atrius, or did you not remember that? This has been enforced before, so why are you just turning a blind eye now?
QuoteI'm not debating whether or not he deserved a ban overall, I'm debating whether this incident should have justified pulling the trigger.
You keep clinging to that quote, assuming that the event was some kind of ultimate trigger, rather than a long standing stream of problems. Atrius, the event alone wasn't enough - it's the whole laundry list that caused us to do this. In other words, it's not the event, it's the whole WEEK that caused this. You try to shift everything by claiming "oh, he has to be innocent because the week doesn't count" and similar BS. Atrius, your argument DOESN'T WORK.
I think I've covered most of this before too... Yeah, here it is:
QuotePlease show me where he insulted your intelligence for disagreeing WITH HIS OPINIONS ON JAPAN, not anything from the past which is, again, irrelevant to this conversation. Please make sure to do it with a quote where he had not been provoked beforehand. Also, I'm having difficulty finding anywhere where someone told him to stop talking about it, if someone could show me that I would appreciate it as well.
I'm not questioning Zman's past, I know he's a problem member, you don't have to prove that to me. I'm questioning why this incident is the one that led to him getting banned. I've read all of it, from back when posts firsts started appearing in the cbox about what's happening in Japan, and I don't see him insulting anyone in this incident aside from that one time when he had clearly been provoked. Maybe I'm missing something, but is it not possible that you're allowing your opinions on him from what he's done in the past cloud your judgement?
Let see... "Long standing stream of problems" - "I'm not questioning Zman's past, I know he's a problem member, you don't have to prove that to me."
"The event alone wasn't enough" - Erm... Of course not, but "should [it] have justified pulling the trigger?"
"it's the whole WEEK that caused this." - Yes, yes, that's what I assumed when I wrote that post. "I've read all of it, from back when posts firsts started appearing in the cbox about what's happening in Japan, and I don't see him insulting anyone in this incident aside from that one time when he had clearly been provoked beforehand."
"You try to shift everything by claiming 'oh, he has to be innocent because the week doesn't count' and similar BS." - *sigh* Okay let's stop here...
I'm not saying he has a clean slate because he didn't do anything wrong this week, he's still a problem member, and should be watched closely, but why now, why does this put him over the top? You keep saying Charon jumped the gun, and shouldn't have done it, but at the same time you defend it! I don't even know what we're arguing over at this point honestly, I get the feeling you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Did you ever bother to read WHY I said she jumped the gun? I wanted a PERMA BAN, the best we can get now is a TEMP BAN. And I'm arguing not because I want to argue, but because I think you're pulling the same BS you pulled when we wound up kicking him from the clan.
You do realize that bans escalate right? If he actually did do something wrong it would eventually escalate to a perma-ban.
Yes, I do, but the best we could do with what he'd actually done, like I said, is a slap on the wrist. This actually fits with both arguments here - you're saying that an outright ban isn't merited, while my argument is "no, not one that's actually worth it".
More than anything, though, the warnings that you threw out are what really set us off. To let him off the hook and turn around and vilify us? That's why we're pissed, atrius. If this is going to end, it's that that must be remedied.
It's quite a normal feeling, being upset after receiving a warning, I think. You're all upstanding forum members, it's not like it amounts to anything at all in the long run anyway.
No, that's not the thing. The thing is, you were being quite a dick about this. Instead of just saying "guys, calm down, don't jump the gun like that", you decided to post what you did instead, which just wound up pissing everyone off and turning them against you, and in my case, as my PM showed, questioning just what the hell you're even doing with the forum anyways.
Claiming "oh, you're just mad that I warned you, but you're all upstart members anyways so it's okay" really, REALLY doesn't come across well, Atrius. From our perspective, you'd rather put the punishment we ALL KNOW zman deserves on us. You'd rather run to him and white knight your way through it, without regard to the fact that HE WAS CAUSING ALL SORTS OF PROBLEMS ON THE FORUM. You're backing a bringer of chaos and attacking the people trying to solve the problem.
Just saying the equivalent of "U mad, but you're all swell guys" is a great way to piss people off further, you know. It's definitely not a way to solve this, that's for sure.
I doubt even you think that's true.
I know that I am just a regular member and all, but I think I agree with Atrius' point on this subject. Everyone understands that he has been a problematic member in the past, and I can also see why some of you were a bit angry with him. However, he did not actually do anything to break the rules until he was provoked by
you and some of the others. Of course...
Quote from: Rule 2.11. Respect the board's members. No random flame wars or bashing of any sort.
The past is irrelevant to what happened before the ban, yet it caused some of the members with fairly decent reputations to lash out at him. Treat others the way you would like to be treated, right?
Of course, I understand why Charon banned him. She has family and friends in Japan, and having someone spew as much incorrect information as they have like "the whole world is doomed" and stuff would tug on some strings that make the presentation seem much more emotionally vexing than was meant to be. To some members, it would look like he is trying to make the situation seem much lighter or heavier than it really is by exaggerating, possibly making the posts look like jokes. If this is done when talking about something like the ongoing tragedy in Japan, it would seem like they are not respecting the feelings of the board's members while looking at certain perspectives.
Now, with all of these factors in mind, I have a proposition for the rules (which is why I am making this post in the first place). To add on to the quoted rule, there should be something that includes conversations held in the chatbox. An example of what I have in mind would be to separate 2.1 into two parts.
2.1.a) Respect the board's members. No random flame wars or bashing of any sort.
2.1.b) As such, their feelings and opinions should be your priority when talking. If they ask to end a conversation in a place that it can not be avoided (not in a topic, but in the chatbox or in other similar places), then you should end it. Being blunt is one thing, but toying with their intelligence or trying to continue with the conversation after being asked to stop is not respectful of the members involved.Something like that, but I am short of time and have to leave now. I hope that everything is solved by the time I return, including this conversation.
I'm not going to justify nor withdraw from my actions at this point; I do not want to get any further in this discussion than the following statement:
I feel that in this case, both sides presented are arguable; however, I lean more towards Atrius as well, despite being an offending party. The thing is, while the anger towards Zman is certainly just, his actions in the Cbox were, for the most part, reactionary, and in of themselves were not punishable. I had a very noticably short fuse with his on that day, considering that for the week prior to his ban I was stressed out over our friends in Japan, and him acting so haphazardly with such a touchy subject did not cross well with me. However, I did not ban him because of that - rather it was the fact that he outright ignored my attempt to redirect the conversation to the appropriate topic, which I had warned him to do so or else he would recieve a ban, in congruency with trouble he's caused before on other topics in prior months.
Salanewt presents an interesting point, however. The rules seem to be lacking much coverage, if any at all, in terms of respect; Zman was certainly disrespectful, as well as some of the other members. Perhaps this incident has highlighted a gaping hole in the rules.
Sigh, Since when did just ignoring what someone says become too hard to get. The chatbox isnt someone's personal space were only what they want to see will be displayed.
Disagreeing with what someone said and calling there claims / comments BS is only going to make him re-enforce his points with further evidence, whether BS or not. Disagreeing is alas different from telling someone to simply stop. If you thought his points were wrong, instead of telling him what to do, (which is a public space and again not your own personal space) Take yourself away from the computer, simply ignore him or better yet, Do some intense research to beable to state Facts! back at him. Your not a geologist, I cant see how you think you know everything and he knows nothing.
Been a while since I read the forum rules but most forums usually have the general, "respect other members opinions" or something along those lines, the reason the key word here is opinions and not "FACTS" is because we are never always right but our thoughts should always be taken into consideration. Its up to you what you do with someone's opinions, you either state your opinion back or you ignore them. But no matter what you choose, You don't tell someone to shut it, that's just ignorant, if their wrong, be the better person and if you dont want to put them straight with Facts, say something like "that's not what I believe" bing bang bosh, ignore posts until the topic changes or change it yourself.
I must say huge credit to Atrius for not giving in with all the stick you's are trying to use to pin on him zman. You should all be big and smart enough to be able to walk away from something. like Atrius said, he caught most of you out in breaking a rule (conflicting against someone's opinions) first, So most of ya have nothing going for ya's but simply trying to pull on a yarn of string trying to get something to come apart and Atrius seems reluctant to fall apart.
I say just drop it, such bickering and conflict isn't needed, change the subject. move on, meant to be a hacking community and the last serious conversation in place here is a debate on whether or not someone broke the rules when the very thing your fighting for is what you are doing yourself, picking side's is just pulling the whole forum member unit apart. catch a grip and be done with it.
Thank you, thank you so much guys. You have no idea how happy it makes me to see that someone understands.
Topic split, and locked. If you want to talk about possible additions to the rules that topic is still open, but I don't think it will do us any good to debate whether or not zman was in the wrong at this point. As far as the warnings I issued go, it's more to make a point than an actual disciplinary action, I'll not be debating it.