Feedback I Cannot be the only one who feels this way

[Morcheeba]

If you start banning/singling out/moderating/discriminating against people who have gone against FFXI ToS, then you have to do it for Windower as well as RMT or botting. It's third party after all. If you ask the GMs, using Winamp is 3rd party in relation to FFXI, so it's against the ToS.

Agreed, but only those who so boldly shove it in the communities face.

Claims should be ignored, it's no one's responsibility here to follow-up with such accusations. If someone's is going to be ignorant enough to boast about breaking the ToS, something the community is against, then they should be singled out.

@Sneaky, you give a great argument, honestly I've given my reasons to support such a function for QCDN. Across the board it would warn all newcomers, they would then have the information available to them on whether or not they want to be part of a community that allows extreme offenders amongst our ranks instead of leaving it to individuals to 'warn' others or the community as a whole to continue bringing up such offenses and offenders for examples.

People should be given the options up front of what they may get themselves into.

 

[Javir]

Again I want to advise that was Morwens suggestion not my own, I just happen to agree with it whole-heartedly.

I understood this, I quoted you both because her input sparked it and your response suggested it. I just wanted to be sure I was noting credit before I expanded on it.

 

[Malagra]

Agreed, but only those who so boldly shove it in the communities face.

Claims should be ignored, it's no one's responsibility here to follow-up with such accusations. If someone's is going to be ignorant enough to boast about breaking the ToS, something the community is against, then they should be singled out.

If they do it so "boldly", wouldn't that really just be flamebaiting? So they would be singled out, but by the forum's rules, for things that happened on the forum. Not anything they may or may not have done in game.
You say claims should be ignored, yet you go on to say that if the target of said claim happens to be the same person who makes it, it's okay. So you can either infer one of two rules of such a system, should it exist. Any claims would have to be 'true'. If someone makes a claim on something no one can realistically verify, and has no place verifying, regardless of who the target is, it must be true. Or you can only accept claims pertaining to one's self. In other words, those who have publicly outed themselves. So let's say this "red flag" system goes up, and Sano is flagged. So in a week, Sano comes and posts "Oh btw, that was all just an elaborate joke". He would then have to be unflagged according to the system. You could not reject one claim, but accept a prior one, when each are equally unverifiable, and it is no one's job to verify any claims after all. What determines whether you believe what someone posts is generally your level of respect for them, and their reputation. Which have little, if anything, to do with the rules or member status set by moderators.
So you either have everyone saying whatever they want about everyone else, or everyone saying whatever they want about themselves, and no way to tell if any of it is true. Any credibility on the forums is now completely gone at this point.

 

[Sanoske]

Actually I have one legitimate question to bring up here that relates to Chasym/Sanoske/etc and/or anyone in the future that admits to hacking/gilselling/etc. How are users going to be treated who disagree with what they do and bring it up in topics outside of the flameboard? Say for example there's some topic and Sano posts then someone replies "Well, that's to be expected from a gilseller". Is that considered a flame? I mean, he did come here and brag about it.

No idea if you have me blocked, but this goes with the thread anyways.

If I post on an FFXI related subject, then I will subject myself to whatever the peanut gallery has to offer. Some people will take my posts seriously (assuming I have a legitimate point) and I know others will continue to resent me on principle. That's cool, and I'll roll with whatever happens. I brought it upon myself, and I accept that.

However, if it happens in threads which have absolutely nothing to do with FFXI... then that is way out of line, in my opinion. Say, if I posted in Sabia's thread about the Greyhounds, and someone comes in and starts making cracks at me based on my gilselling... yea, that's not acceptable.

 

[Mirewen]

If you start banning/singling out/moderating/discriminating against people who have gone against FFXI ToS, then you have to do it for Windower as well as RMT or botting. It's third party after all. If you ask the GMs, using Winamp is 3rd party in relation to FFXI, so it's against the ToS.

You would have to also ban people like Tymon and Tyrath who made a mistake but don't do it anymore and still contribute to the community and the site.

 

[Morcheeba]

So let's say this "red flag" system goes up, and Sano is flagged. So in a week, Sano comes and posts "Oh btw, that was all just an elaborate joke". He would then have to be unflagged according to the system. You could not reject one claim, but accept a prior one, when each are equally unverifiable, and it is no one's job to verify any claims after all. What determines whether you believe what someone posts is generally your level of respect for them, and their reputation. Which have little, if anything, to do with the rules or member status set by moderators.
So you either have everyone saying whatever they want about everyone else, or everyone saying whatever they want about themselves, and no way to tell if any of it is true. Any credibility on the forums is now completely gone at this point.

Actually in Sanoskes case, I don't know him from a hole in the wall, but I do know I saw multiple SS' proving his offense(s) which he coupled with his bold statement in GT.

That's not a claim.

Had Sanoske just said "F You all I'm out, and BTW I sold all my GEAR
& Gil to pay for college hurr hurr" that's a self-flamebait. Different repercussions.

 

[Rappa]

multiple SS'

Reminds me of another thing that was bothering me that I forgot to mention. These bragging screenshots actually left the URL of the site where the gil was sold to. Now I personally don't plan to sell any gil, but as many people here have stated, they'd be happy to do it when they quit. By leaving these unaltered images on QCDN, these people can quite easily search for the topics when they decide to sell gil and find a site they know will reliably pay them for it. I think the images should be removed or at least have the URLs blocked from them.

 

[Sneakypants]

Reminds me of another thing that was bothering me that I forgot to mention. These bragging screenshots actually left the URL of the site where the gil was sold to. Now I personally don't plan to sell any gil, but as many people here have stated, they'd be happy to do it when they quit. By leaving these unaltered images on QCDN, these people can quite easily search for the topics when they decide to sell gil and find a site they know will reliably pay them for it. I think the images should be removed or at least have the URLs blocked from them.

We should also block all search engine URLs then.

 

[Rappa]

We should also block all search engine URLs then.

That analogy doesn't work, and never has. Surely you of all people can do better than that. Note the fact that I said "reliable", meaning that we KNOW FOR CERTAIN the site Sanoske used will pay. If people want to play with fire with some random site they found on google, that's their own choice. Providing them a known, working site is irresponsible.

 

[Morcheeba]

That analogy doesn't work, and never has. Surely you of all people can do better than that. Note the fact that I said "reliable", meaning that we KNOW FOR CERTAIN the site Sanoske used will pay. If people want to play with fire with some random site they found on google, that's their own choice. Providing them a known, working site is irresponsible.

Absolutely. If anything that certainly implies we condone such actions.

 

[Sneakypants]

It absolutely works. It's ridiculous, but that's my point.

You also said, "quite easily search for the topics when they decide to sell gil and find a site "

Search engines make this quite easy. And so it applies just fine. Of course we shouldn't block search engines. That's dumb and it helps nothing. Neither does blocking specific sites that people know for certain that pay for gil. I believe Sano even mentioned that this particular company wasn't the one that paid the best, but he was in a hurry and went with it. He can correct me if I read that wrong.

Nobody is "providing" anything. Those that will sell gil, will sell gil. They know the sites are out there and how to find them. They don't need it advertised. Block it here if it makes you feel fuzzy, but it will have absolutely zero effect on whether or not someone will sell gil or not.

 

[Rappa]

No, it gets zero point across. When I say "search", I mean go to the Good Times board and find his topic where you know 100% for certain you can find a site that works. You cannot do that with google, you just get whatever random results come up that day. You're just splitting hairs with words now, which is silly. You aren't even attempting to contest the point with any reason why the images should be left here unaltered, you're just trying to argue the devil's advocate in a ridiculous fashion for no apparent reason.

 

[Sanoske]

Search engines make this quite easy. And so it applies just fine. Of course we shouldn't block search engines. That's dumb and it helps nothing. Neither does blocking specific sites that people know for certain that pay for gil. I believe Sano even mentioned that this particular company wasn't the one that paid the best, but he was in a hurry and went with it. He can correct me if I read that wrong.

Technically selling directly to a player would pay the highest, but also a good chance to getting screwed over.

In any case, I went back to replace the SSs with edited ones that had all traces of website name removed, although I realized I can't edit my post now that it's locked.

 

[Morcheeba]

Technically selling directly to a player would pay the highest, but also a good chance to getting screwed over.

In any case, I went back to replace the SSs with edited ones that had all traces of website name removed, although I realized I can't edit my post now that it's locked.

and part of the FB =)

 

[Malagra]

Actually in Sanoskes case, I don't know him from a hole in the wall, but I do know I saw multiple SS' proving his offense(s) which he coupled with his bold statement in GT.

That's not a claim.

BUT it's still UNVERIFIED. You don't have any sort of access to the website logs. You don't have any idea of the validity of the screenshots. Pictures can be shopped. For the record, that's why I said "elaborate". Think of the April Fool's jokes that people thought were real. They clearly were completely false, but had the air of being real about them.
Even if someone came onto QCDN, and claimed to be the operator of the website Sano used to sell his gil, and backed him up, it would still be an unverified claim.

I'm sure someone here could photoshop a tell conversation up with you saying you've slept with all the GMs and that's why you're not banned (not that I'm saying you should be, this is all hypothetical) despite your hacking, and could post it. Or a post in a private forum, or something like that. They then post this on the public forums. You post saying it obviously wasn't you. In this hypothetical situation, there's 2 unverifiable claims: that you slept with all the GMs, and that you didn't. Neither is more valid than the other, despite having screenshots with you claiming that you slept with GMs. It's not any sort of actual evidence. No way to tell who is right, it's left open to personal subjective interpretation. If this post is made on the FB, it violates no forum rules, and who to believe is set to exactly the way it is now.

EDIT: Rappa, there's no guarantee that the website will continue to work. There's also no way to tell how the website operates based on that screenshot. Also, just because it's in a screenshot doesn't mean it's real. I have nothing against you, for the record, so don't take this the wrong way. http://www.rappasellsgil.com , since it's a hyperlink it must be real right? With a bit of work, I could photoshop it into a website address bar, and then screenshot it. And then it must be real, cause it's in a screenshot, amirite? Screenshots are not proof of anything. The possibility could still exist that Sano could come back after an indefinite amount of time saying it was all just a big joke, meant to troll all of QCDN. He's not going to, but it could happen. To make a judgement to put him in an undesirable usergroup, or inflict infractions based on him not breaking any forum rules (aside from maybe flamebaiting, but that's got nothing to do with his actual selling of gil and breaking FFXI ToS) is ridiculous. It'd be like giving out infractions for d/c'ing from a party, or missing an event, or a lot and dash.

 

[Rappa]

I'm sure someone here could photoshop a tell conversation up with you saying you've slept with all the GMs and that's why you're not banned (not that I'm saying you should be, this is all hypothetical) despite your hacking, and could post it. Or a post in a private forum, or something like that. They then post this on the public forums. You post saying it obviously wasn't you. In this hypothetical situation, there's 2 unverifiable claims: that you slept with all the GMs, and that you didn't. Neither is more valid than the other, despite having screenshots with you claiming that you slept with GMs. It's not any sort of actual evidence. No way to tell who is right, it's left open to personal subjective interpretation. If this post is made on the FB, it violates no forum rules, and who to believe is set to exactly the way it is now.

This example is someone else posting the picture incriminating you. In the Sanoske example, he posted it himself. Even if it was an elaborate hoax, if someone wants to out themself like that, they've earned the disdain shown to them (or I suppose I should say, disdain that should be shown to them) even if they later come back and say it was a joke.

 

[Sneakypants]

No, it gets zero point across. When I say "search", I mean go to the Good Times board and find his topic where you know 100% for certain you can find a site that works. You cannot do that with google, you just get whatever random results come up that day. You're just splitting hairs with words now, which is silly. You aren't even attempting to contest the point with any reason why the images should be left here unaltered, you're just trying to argue the devil's advocate in a ridiculous fashion for no apparent reason.

Dude, I'm not arguing without reason. Seriously, you need to stop copping out whenever someone doesn't agree with you. I know exactly what you meant, but was making a point to that. I've posted plenty of worthy material, so it's false to try and say otherwise. Mainly, my points here have been to point out what would be unnecessary regulation of the site. Your idea falls into that category.

 

[Morcheeba]

Mainly, my points here have been to point out what would be unnecessary regulation of the site. Your idea falls into that category.

Ok maybe it's a bit over board as far as standard regulating goes, but it IS irresponsible like Rappa had said.

Leaving that information up for anyone in here to recall and seek out would be irresponsible, and yes should be removed by the mods if/when such information IS provided.

Much like the battle everyone had to get rid of the IGE.

I really am done here. You all know where I stand, suggestions/solutions I back. I need a smoke ;p good luck.

 

[Malagra]

This example is someone else posting the picture incriminating you. In the Sanoske example, he posted it himself. Even if it was an elaborate hoax, if someone wants to out themself like that, they've earned the disdain shown to them (or I suppose I should say, disdain that should be shown to them) even if they later come back and say it was a joke.

Not the point. They're both unverifiable claims, and if you accept them and make decisions based on "he said, she said" is stupid. If you believe his earlier claim that has no supporting evidence, you must also believe any other unsupported claims he may make in the future. So if he said "I'm not a gilseller, I just photoshopped those screenshots, here's some other work I've done proving my skill with image editing", you'd have to believe it the same way you believed his earlier claim. So any ill effects that were incurred to him from the earlier claim, would have to be reversed, because if you believe him once, you must believe him twice. So there'd literally be no point to such a system, because all you'd have to do would be to say "Oh that was just a joke" or "I didn't really do it, I was just trolling".

 

[Rappa]

Where do people come up with this stuff? Sneaky, saying "let's block search engines" is about as poor of an internet argument as comparing someone to hitler. It reminds me of the actual Sanoske flame, where people who said they wouldn't sell gil were asked if they would sell it if the lives of their children depended on it or other such ridiculous claims. Those types of arguments are what people come up with when they are backed into a corner and have no real valid counterargument to put up anymore. When you find one or two words in an argument and just argue their definition, it's just a waste of time. Even Sanoske himself has already edited the images, he just couldn't post them. If you can come up with a VALID reason why the urls should be left in the images, I'd be happy to hear it. "Because" or "let's block search engines" are not valid reasons.

Malagra, if people want to lie and claim they broke the law then come back and say "loljk", the community doesn't owe them any kind of sympathy or a removal of any slight put on their account. If you play with fire, you get burned.

Again, I'm not going to waste an afternoon participating in arguments over google being evil or anything asinine like that. I stated what I think should happen and the person who posted the images seems to agree. A few decent proposals have been made in this topic. It's pretty much up to the admins/mods to come back now, read the topic, and decide what should be done.