Just so we're clear.

Trippyhippy

Trippyhippy

est. 1981
Adventurer
Joined
Dec 15, 2004
Messages
4,152
Age
45
Location
Knoxville, Tennessee
Reeve said:
In all seriousness though, I'm not big on rules... so think of these instead as guidelines. Rules are hard and fast and unchangeable but guidelines allow us to use our judgement and be flexible when its needed. We are all smart enough to know whats generally acceptable or not after all.
Click to expand...

That is a lot less cut and dry than some people would like to think it is.

The attitude and behavior of the person/s this pertains to is nonconstructive and unnecessary.
 
I'd personally like to request where it says you must be punished for relaying for a banned member. It's not in the main rules post, or any of the category-specific ones I've read. I always figured it was something that fuckwit Sculli decided to do himself, simply because he was a fuckwit.

If anything, it's just proof that the "rules" need to not be scattered so far and wide. It's pretty ridiculous to expect someone to follow specific ones at all times if there isn't a well constructed centralized posting.
 
Wow Eleib got banned for that too.

Really funny thing, he's pretty logical and sensible at all times. Although I'm sure he saw this coming, he knew what he was doing but SOOO SILLY!
 
Trippyhippy said:
10 Day RO turned into a 30 day ban? How does that work?

On the first offense st that.
Click to expand...

I'm going to guess he had previous infractions. Just because two people do the same thing, doesn't mean they get the same punishment if they have previous infraction points.

Edit: And apparently it was worse but it was lowered?

Append:
This has been lowered to 10 days read-only. This was a situation that came about due, in part, to staff negligence. Due to an apology and this reason, Makelith and I are lowering this.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
We're likely making an adjustment to the infractions for posting for a banned user to 14 days RO for 1st time offense. Possibly 30 day RO/ban for a 2nd offense. And allowing a banned user to use your account would result in a perma. This came up as we can see, as you do, that ther is a need for distinguishing lines...In this instance.

That's still being hashed out. Yes, we discuss things as a group before making such radical decisions.
 
Sneakypants said:
We're likely making an adjustment to the infractions for posting for a banned user to 14 days RO for 1st time offense. Possibly 30 day RO/ban for a 2nd offense. And allowing a banned user to use your account would result in a perma. This came up as we can see, as you do, that ther is a need for distinguishing lines...In this instance.

That's still being hashed out. Yes, we discuss things as a group before making such radical decisions.
Click to expand...

That is a good start.

Now how bout that 30 day ban? Id that going to stand?
 
Trippyhippy said:
If he does, they aren't listed in C&P.
Click to expand...

You can get infractions (which are not straight bans or ROs) without a punishment. Infractions are kinda like warnings that build up to punishments.
 
Last edited:
Trippyhippy said:
That is a good start.

Now how bout that 30 day ban? Id that going to stand?
Click to expand...

No, it probably won't stand, but it if/when we change the rule it will be retroactive for him.
 
Skaw said:
That's nice. It's not written in the rules, but yet it's magically a rule?
Click to expand...

I knew it was a rule. I can't seem to find it, but there was an instance where an actual user was more or less a sockpuppet for a banned user, and realistically circumventing the ban. So instead of a perma, they got a 30 day.

And even if it wasn't written down, banned users don't get to post any more. That's common sense right? So if they circumvent that ban by using someone else's account, or do it via someone else, isn't that really the same as posting on their own account? So they don't get to post any more. It's not different than Blazn's or Neolink's sockpuppets, but because it's an actual other user, they're giving them a break.

You're arguing for more flexibility in the rules, but on the position that because it's not written exactly in the rules, or that because such and such happened and I didn't see it, that falls under clause 14a of Rule #56, Section VIII. Do you not see the hypocrisy in that? If you want the mods to give you more flexibility in the type of things you can and can't do in the site (which is the purpose of the rules in the first place), you have to give them the flexibility to do what they think is best for the site.

Actually no, it's their site and they can do what they want.
 
Malagra said:
Actually no, it's their site and they can do what they want.
Click to expand...

While, yes its true. If i wanted to i could just erase all the templates for every style and leave everyone with nothing, but in the end, we have the site because of the community. If i ban everyone in the community i lose the purpose of my place here. I don't plan on getting rid of rules, but when people PM me in a calm manner and present logical points, they will get the same response from me.
 
Didn't Odon recently post for someone and got off with just a warning for it? Before he was banned for other stuff I mean.

Other then that, yeah, um. The picture he posted, banned 30 days for that, really? Wow.
 
If we change it (and it seems like we will to put these delineations in place), then Elei's ban would change to reflect that as well. After all, it is examination of this instance versus the others that got us talking about a need for some distinguishing factors.

One thing. Just because something was a certain way last year or long ago, does not mean today things must follow that completely rigidly. We do use the existing rules to make decisions today, and most often, they are in perfect alignment with the current verbage. However, when changes like this one are needed, well, they are needed.

As I said, we're talking about many rules, and some things will be changing. Some things may carry lighter or heavier infractions than they currently do. These types of reevaluations are always going to be a work in progress, so going forward, as we cite past infractions, we must take them with a grain of salt.

Understand that when someone receives an infraction that is the staff acting as a vehicle to carry forth the rules of the site. That is all that is happening. Every time someone gets banned, what is really unnecessary are the cries of the friends that somehow believe their friend has been treated unfairly. Best thing you can do is try not to break the rules, and if you slip up we're not out to get you. But listen to the warnings you receive. The warnings are a reminder of what kind of standing is kept with the site and what will happen should the rules continue to be broken or ignored. There's not a whole lot more to say. Fair is fair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top