Cbox rules, and Zman controversy

[Rolina]

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.

They're not even punishable at all unless broken to extreme excess

They're not even punishable at all unless broken to extreme excess

They'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.

[Atrius (He/Him)]

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.

*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.

[Rolina]

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.

[leaf]

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...

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?

[Kain]

We are not Nazi's of that particular variety.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgnIjJexut4&feature=player_detailpage#t=618s

[Atrius (He/Him)]

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?

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.

[Rolina]

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?

[Atrius (He/Him)]

I'm not debating whether or not he deserved a ban overall, I'm debating whether this incident should have justified pulling the trigger.

[Rolina]

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.

[Atrius (He/Him)]

I think I've covered most of this before too... Yeah, here it is:

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?

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.

[Rolina]

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.

[Atrius (He/Him)]

You do realize that bans escalate right?  If he actually did do something wrong it would eventually escalate to a perma-ban.

[Rolina]

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.

[Atrius (He/Him)]

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.

[Rolina]

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.

[Atrius (He/Him)]

I doubt even you think that's true.

[Salanewt]

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...

1. 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.

Code (Proposed Rule Modification) Select Expand



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.

[Charon]

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.

[MaxiPower]

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.

[Atrius (He/Him)]

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.