Why was Peregrine allowed to make a new account and post here?

[Zyndara]

After looking around and being unable to find such a rule quickly, gonna have to ask you to quote it for me. I have a feeling that the wording is suggestive of not letting banned people directly on your account, not forwarding a message. Where does it stop? Is Zylia paraphrasing what peregrine said against the rules? Would someone posting a screenshot of a convo with vang saying something dumb/funny against the rules?

And necrosis was only temp-banned for letting vang directly onto his account? That sounds alot worse than forwarding a message to a mod through a PM. As for your comment about "keeping in touch", I somehow doubt peregrine wanted to chat about what they did last weekend, sometimes you do have to consider context. I personally would not of forwarded a personal message of no importance for someone else, but if the situation seemed important to the point someone's physical health might actually be an issue, I'd defiantly forward a message.

The world is not clear-cut black and white, I don't know what the PM pere sent through cecilee was about, or any other details not in this thread, but if it was anything like the PM I sent to mods because of peregrine, you'd have to be pretty damn heartless not to forward the message. If you think upholding peregrine's ban from the site for making dumb comments about a video game is more important than someone's physical health, then you have some odd priorities.

Odd ppriorities to me would be continuing to frequent a place you were banned from because you had no self control. If Peregrine hadn't been such an egotistical asshole when he was here, he would still be here doling out his medical advice and cramming his medical degree and the notion that his life was so much more valuable and rewarding than any of ours down our throats.

If you have a concersation w/ Peregrine and he tells you x, and you want to take it upon yourself to PM someone and do this incredible benevolent life-saving you seem to be making it out to be, then good for you. No I don't think that's the same as being that person in disguise (as it seemed to be the case w/ cicilee) or allowing them to use your account to actually personally message or post. But I'm sorry, doing what you took an oath to do as a doctor doesn't suddenly give you a free pass back into a place where you regularly treated everyone like shit. You don't get to act however you like and piss on rules and the people who made them and then do a good deed and suddenly wipe away every dick thing you did. The real world doesn't work that way. There are consequences to actions, and even a doctor knows that.

 

[Zylia]

Interested to see a mod's opinion on it. Also interested to see the reasoning for Cecilee's banning in writing on the crime and punishment section (of course we need a precedent to be made official if he was in fact banned for passing on a message for Peregrine.)

It shouldn't be unfair to address someone whose a representative (moderator, admin - someone who administers the rules of the board...) of the website as long as its within reason. Especially if it's in private and it isn't to the point of harassment. I don't know about you, but I don't equate a PM sent to a mod through another member in private with a sockpuppet posting in General Discussion.

When I log into QCDN at work, I can see parts of the forum without physically logging in. There are some parts of the forum that remain public, and I think those are the parts of the forum that Peregrine still reads, but obviously cannot post on. Perhaps the forum should be made completely private if that is an issue. Just thought I'd add that in. Not sure if thats the case but perhaps that would help you guys in keeping him off the forum entirely.

Step away from the fact its Peregrine. No one should have any method to contest a banning or even determine why they were banned? From what I can see, Cecilee had no warning as to why he was banned - he was just banned. There was no warning sent when he messaged the PM to the mods letting him know that his action was illegal. Time passed since then, and the only reason he was banned yesterday was wild accusations that it was Peregrine on the account. It wasn't Peregrine on the account, and while I'm not sure of the date of the PM, it seems that time has passed since it happened.

Seems a little over the line in that regard.

 

[Makelith]

Adding on to that, how long was Deuce able to post on Duckmysick, "Because he wasn't causing any trouble"? I don't know about most people, but i find Deuce to be a hell of a lot worse then Pere.

As far as the Cecille (or however the hell you spell it) thing goes, i don't see what the problem is. No one even knew about the message that was sent to a mod. It obviously wasn't harassment either. By this precedent, we're gonna have to ban daveman too, or else its not having the rules enforced. What's the point of rules if we can pick and choose who they apply to.

I highly doubt that pere still frequents here, because "he has no self control". This is just getting rediculous now.

 

[Daveman]

If you have a concersation w/ Peregrine and he tells you x, and you want to take it upon yourself to PM someone and do this incredible benevolent life-saving you seem to be making it out to be, then good for you. No I don't think that's the same as being that person in disguise (as it seemed to be the case w/ cicilee) or allowing them to use your account to actually personally message or post.

I did not infact take it upon myself, I was asked to by peregrine, otherwise I would of not bothered. And as much as there's a 99% chance that such a message carries no RL weight on someone's rl, it is very possible something so simple can affect someone's life, especially when dealing with mental illness or drug abuse. You cannot ignore the slim chance that it might turn out that something can really help out a person however.

As for being the same person in disguise, if cicilee was banned for being peregrine, and the mods had proof of it, then that's fine by me. However I personally doubt it was peregrine, as peregrine has told me about his mnk friend who might be on his account on ffxi, and to not think it's him. As possible as it is that this is some huge elaborate lie, I personally think that they are in fact different people.


As far as peregrine having access to qcdn, he does. I don't really think it makes him obsessive as long as he doesn't make a sock puppet every few minutes like some people. I personally have gaps of months of not posting on qcdn, even though I visit the site regularly all the time. If you can find his proper IP and ban him and only him, more power to the mods. (Don't ban ip ranges... I happen to be banned from killingifirit and the reason is "proxyban", same reason half the proxies I used are banned too, that stuff's just annyoing)

 

[Trippyhippy]

Unfortunatly, as much as I dislike Cecilee, I agree with daveman.

If it really isn't peregrine posting (and you can check via IP address), then he hasn't done anything to warrent getting permabanned. Peregrine did NOT post here at all. He just sent a PM to a mod. None of us had to look at his drivel and there was no reason to ban Cecilee (for that).

Now, whereas I have no problems with Kink, her account most certainly should have been banned because it was actually her posting. That is a blatent "no-no".

 

[Sneakypants]

Documentation? Official precedents?

Serious business, all for unwanted people.

 

[Grem]

Better safe than sorry in my books.

 

[Daveman]

Documentation? Official precedents?

Serious business, all for unwanted people.

So we're burning witches now? Anyone who people "think" is peregrine is to be banned on sight without proof?

 

[Makelith]

I have reason the believe that Grem is Peregrine. Time to ban him!

Better safe then sorry right?

We all remember what happened with the Puritans...

 

[Alyada]

I agree that a little more precidence should've been handled with Cecilee's account but, it wasn't more than two weeks ago that Necrosis got banned. It shouldn't be that hard to put two & two together.

A banned user contesting banning though? No way. This is a private forum, first and foremost. We don't have to have "customer service" just because people demand it. If you get banned you get banned for a reason.

As for Duece, I think that was around the time I was still a mod. I distinctly remember one of the admins (either Sculli or Reeve) saying to leave him alone.

Then again, that was in the past. One bad apple ruins it for the bunch, I suppose. I like the current rule better.

 

[Garvin]

To be perfectly honest, I was under the impression that Cecilee was Peregrine for two reasons. The first being the content of the posts they were making, and the second being that an administrator acknowledged that it was Peregrine and refused to discuss any further.

And to whichever of the original admins who said to "leave [a banned user] alone"...

 

[Zyndara]

I highly doubt that pere still frequents here, because "he has no self control". This is just getting rediculous now.

What's ridiculous is having to definte perma-ban to people. It's not a tough concept.

I for one wouldn't frequent a place that I got banned from because I couldn't stop being an asshole. So you're right. Maybe the self-control part was before the ban and not after, my bad.

 

[Zylia]

Cecilee was permabanned for passing on a message to an admin from a banned user. It was not public.

Necrosis was 1-month banned for allowing a banned user to post on the general forums. It was public.

Seems theres a bit of unfair treatment in that aspect. Wouldn't you agree? What part of permabanned does the mod that 1-monthed Necrosis not understand, if your argument holds.

If anything the punishments should be flipped, as Cecilee's "crime" was less of an invasion to the community itself. If not flipped, they should be equal, as both allowed a banned user to communicate with members, be it mods or general, through the forums itself.

 

[Sneakypants]

So we're burning witches now? Anyone who people "think" is peregrine is to be banned on sight without proof?

If he's communicating at all through them, yes, that's what I am saying. Call it a witch hunt if you like, but he was perma-banned.

This is a private forum, first and foremost. We don't have to have "customer service" just because people demand it. If you get banned you get banned for a reason.

Exactly.

Cecilee was permabanned for passing on a message to an admin from a banned user. It was not public.

Plus it was Peregrine that he was relaying information for... You may like him, but thousands hate him.
EPIC ban.
Nobody wants to hear anything from him, as seen by discrepancies in banning policies.
Yes there are discrepancies. Ultimately, the admins catch some slack from who, a few of Peregrine's buddies that don't like the way it's handled? Not a tough choice, considering it cuts off the lines of communication Peregrine had with QCDN.

 

[Makelith]

I agree that a little more precidence should've been handled with Cecilee's account but, it wasn't more than two weeks ago that Necrosis got banned. It shouldn't be that hard to put two & two together.

Necrosis only got a one month ban though, for letting Vang on his acount publicly. Jevenile got permananned for the same thing. I see different rulings for the exact same offense.

Cecilee got permabanned for sending a mod a PM, about what seems to be a health related issues, in private. As in, no one knew about it, and no one really had to.

Looks like we have to permaban Daveman too for that offense right? He did the exact same thing. Why isn't he banned?

As for Duece, I think that was around the time I was still a mod. I distinctly remember one of the admins (either Sculli or Reeve) saying to leave him alone.

So now admins are in control of users who are allowed to come back vs. ones that aren't? This has favoritism written all over it. Weather or not it is the case, a permabanned user is a permabanned user is a permabanned user.

and the second being that an administrator acknowledged that it was Peregrine and refused to discuss any further.

I have never seen anything of this sort, and if you could point me in the right direction on it, that would be great. I'd like to see that post.

What's ridiculous is having to definte perma-ban to people. It's not a tough concept.

And no one here, at least not me, is trying to argue what a permaban entails. I'm just going off situations that are EXACTLY the same, and how they have been treated massively differently.

I for one wouldn't frequent a place that I got banned from because I couldn't stop being an asshole. So you're right. Maybe the self-control part was before the ban and not after, my bad.

I think we all know the self-control was before the ban. That doesn't take a whole lot of brain work to figure out, but with what Daveman said about his PM to a mod/admin from pere, was that it was a health issue. You don't know what the PM said and i don't know what the PM said, but it seems to be pretty clear he didn't have the intention of being an asshole.

 

[Sneakypants]

Necrosis only got a one month ban though, for letting Vang on his acount publicly. Jevenile got permananned for the same thing. I see different rulings for the exact same offense.

Cecilee got permabanned for sending a mod a PM, about what seems to be a health related issues, in private. As in, no one knew about it, and no one really had to.

Looks like we have to permaban Daveman too for that offense right? He did the exact same thing. Why isn't he banned?



So now admins are in control of users who are allowed to come back vs. ones that aren't? This has favoritism written all over it. Weather or not it is the case, a permabanned user is a permabanned user is a permabanned user.



I have never seen anything of this sort, and if you could point me in the right direction on it, that would be great. I'd like to see that post.



And no one here, at least not me, is trying to argue what a permaban entails. I'm just going off situations that are EXACTLY the same, and how they have been treated massively differently.



I think we all know the self-control was before the ban. That doesn't take a whole lot of brain work to figure out, but with what Daveman said about his PM to a mod/admin from pere, was that it was a health issue. You don't know what the PM said and i don't know what the PM said, but it seems to be pretty clear he didn't have the intention of being an asshole.

I'd agree there are discrepancies. Perhaps favorites...Which I can understand in this specific example.

If precedents are going to be set, they are based on the current case that generates the precedent. You don't go back in time and reevaluate the sentence you gave people because things changed days, weeks, or years after.

You ban people, based on this example, that allow perma-banned users a communication vehicle to QCDN? Fine, but you don't call up every other issue like that, of which there have been several, and repunish them.

FYI

 

[Makelith]

I had a long thought out post to give you sneaky, but then i hit delete, because you were right.

Go back to your nursing home old man.

/eat words.

 

[Sneakypants]

You are making me leave my beloved rocking chair? ;;

 

[Garvin]

I have never seen anything of this sort, and if you could point me in the right direction on it, that would be great. I'd like to see that post.

I never said it was a post.

(6:12:24 PM) Garvin: Huh
(6:12:49 PM) Garvin: Might want to consider running a check on Cecilee
(6:13:07 PM) Garvin: Comparison with Peregrine's old IP and Hostname
(6:13:22 PM) Eleibfrid: We already know its him
(6:13:34 PM) Garvin: Oh?
(6:13:54 PM) Eleibfrid: Yeah, for a while now

- via AIM upon hearing reasonable rumors of Cecilee being Peregrine.

 

[meeze]

Cecilee was permabanned for passing on a message to an admin from a banned user. It was not public.

Necrosis was 1-month banned for allowing a banned user to post on the general forums. It was public.

Seems theres a bit of unfair treatment in that aspect. Wouldn't you agree? What part of permabanned does the mod that 1-monthed Necrosis not understand, if your argument holds.

If anything the punishments should be flipped, as Cecilee's "crime" was less of an invasion to the community itself. If not flipped, they should be equal, as both allowed a banned user to communicate with members, be it mods or general, through the forums itself.

I got two weeks for flamebaiting, romper got 3 days, life isn't fair.

On top of that, the kid talks and acts like peregrine. It is obvious that peregrine has access to an acct because he contacted me about a fb thread which isn't viewable by non active members.