Cbox rules, and Zman controversy

[Atrius (He/Him)]

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.

[RTGreece21]

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?

[Charon]

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.

[leaf]

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).

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.

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:

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.

[MaxiPower]

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

[Rolina]

The thing is, when you're asked repeatedly to stop, and you keep going, it can easily be interpreted as trolling.

[Crystal Sonata]

Actually i kind of agree with that analysis.

[Kain]

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.

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.

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.

Yesterday 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.

Yesterday at 10:20:46 PM - zman9000 - fine I have come up with the simplest way to explain it:

March 14, 2011, 12:55:10 AM - zman9000 - also before you complain again you should serch the history of nuclear meltdowns

Yesterday 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.

March 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.

[Atrius (He/Him)]

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.

[Rolina]

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.

[Atrius (He/Him)]

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.

[Rolina]

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.

[Atrius (He/Him)]

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?

[Rolina]

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.

[Atrius (He/Him)]

I've read them, they're all based on the assumption that he was trolling, hence:

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?

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.

[Rolina]

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.

[Crystal Sonata]

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.

[Rolina]

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.

[Kain]

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. 

[Atrius (He/Him)]

@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.