Thoughts on new policy (sorry guys, but lite-spam)

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:53 am

Ravager wrote:Xan, he didn't receive a single warning about being banned for it, he reposted something that mysteriously vanished a couple of times, that's all. Didn't he deserve some kind of comment, some kind of warning to stop what he was doing that was wrong BEFORE he was banned?

Again, you lie in order to create sympathies for your own opinions. Lestat was PM:ed before he was banned.

Masa · Post by **Masa** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:56 am

I might be wrong but maybe he didn't have time to read it before banned and now he can't access his PM while banned.

Ravager · Post by **Ravager** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:56 am

No, he wasn't. You PMed him...I don't believe that counts as an offical warning from an SYM mod/Supermod/Buck...do you?

And that's true, he can't access his PMs now.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 7:02 am

Ravager wrote:Well, this seems like an incident that could have gone through the infraction system...if you don't agree, why don't you think so?
<snip>

Well, then you apparently haven't been looking at the infraction system.
As said, this was not an ordinary breech of forum rules or policies, thus it does not warrent infractions, which you try to compare it to. It was not a person accidently breaking the rules, or posting advertisments etc.

It was posting of confidential material leaked from the moderator forum, designed to target moderators and fuel a fire.

It is not even close to being the same.

Luis Antonio · Post by **Luis Antonio** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 7:04 am

OMG! Now this is getting real. Lestat banned, two mods kicked.

Buck, nobody doubts you, I'm sure. Maybe people arent targeting you exactly here. Something really weird happened because this aint the ways things were ever dealt at Speak Your Mind or Gamebanshee.

Anyway I fullheartedly disagree with the kick given at Lestat, who is a really nice member and NEVER FLAMED ANYONE IN THE BOARDS. In fact he defended people from flames, and is a very worried member of the community. Why has this happened? Is this temporary?

Ravager · Post by **Ravager** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 7:05 am

The point of having such things as 'Major Infractions' and 'Major Flaming' was to cover such incidents that didn't fall under an exact heading. That's the problem with the Infraction System, you can't apply it directly to every situation, yet you're still going ahead with it and applying it where neccesary.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 7:07 am

Luis Antonio wrote:<snip>
Anyway I fullheartedly disagree with the kick given at Lestat, who is a really nice member and NEVER FLAMED ANYONE IN THE BOARDS. In fact he defended people from flames, and is a very worried member of the community. Why has this happened? Is this temporary?

If you read the reply Buck gave after the action, you'll notice that Lestat (as mentioned quite a number of times now) posted material leaked from the moderator forum which have been shared in confidentiality, attempting to target moderators and continue to fuel this fire.

Damuna_Nova · Post by **Damuna_Nova** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 7:14 am

Xandax wrote:If you read the reply Buck gave after the action, you'll notice that Lestat (as mentioned quite a number of times now) posted material leaked from the moderator forum which have been shared in confidentiality, attempting to target moderators and continue to fuel this fire.

Xan, that's actually a horrible assumption, you have no proof that the information was spread maliciously, or that Lestat posted what he did with ill intent, I have read that post, and I feel it is as valid as any other point posted here, and in no way inflammatory.

The only thing I can conceive as being wrong with it, is that he quoted the mod forum. That quote could have been removed, and Lestat could have been warned and asked never to post anything from the mod forum ever again.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 7:14 am

Ravager wrote:The point of having such things as 'Major Infractions' and 'Major Flaming' was to cover such incidents that didn't fall under an exact heading. That's the problem with the Infraction System, you can't apply it directly to every situation, yet you're still going ahead with it and applying it where neccesary.

This is not a discussion about the infraction system.
Also the infraction system does not do the banning. It is still neasecary to assign the banning manually, so it would have made no difference either.

This is a discussion about why 1.500 posts where implemented as a thread limit, and where Lestat posted confidential material to target moderators and fuel the fire.

His banning has nothing to do with the general forum rules, and thus it has no relevance what so ever that an infraction system exists.

His actions carried a consequence, and that consequence was an insta banning. It is not something which is up for discussion.

Masa · Post by **Masa** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 7:16 am

Still it's unfair that we can't hear both sides of the story, what would Lestat have to say for his defence.

Luis Antonio · Post by **Luis Antonio** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 7:16 am

Xandax wrote:This is not a discussion about the infraction system.
Also the infraction system does not do the banning. It is still neasecary to assign the banning manually, so it would have made no difference either.

This is a discussion about why 1.500 posts where implemented as a thread limit, and where Lestat posted confidential material to target moderators and fuel the fire.

His banning has nothing to do with the general forum rules, and thus it has no relevance what so ever that an infraction system exists.

His actions carried a consequence, and that consequence was an insta banning. It is not something which is up for discussion.

That's just erasing the records, Xandax, not solving the problem. Its like leaving the door opened to the thief and killing him when he enters. You'll still have to face it someday, either in the form of justice or in the form of killing more and more people.

Luis Antonio · Post by **Luis Antonio** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 7:18 am

Masa wrote:Still it's unfair that we can't hear both sides of the story, what would Lestat have to say for his defence.

I still have no actual reply for being thrown out of the mod team.

And if it continues this way, the next step is to close this discussion because it is entirely a flame directed to x or y person, which is, in no way, truth.

Ravager · Post by **Ravager** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 7:20 am

Xandax wrote:This is not a discussion about the infraction system.
Also the infraction system does not do the banning. It is still neasecary to assign the banning manually, so it would have made no difference either.

This is a discussion about why 1.500 posts where implemented as a thread limit, and where Lestat posted confidential material to target moderators and fuel the fire.

As I said, he could have been warned officially before he was banned, and the infraction system could have been used. This is relevant as it pertains to Lestat's banning. Though, if it makes you happier, I'm perfectly happy to start a new thread on it.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 7:22 am

Ravager, the number of lies you and a few others have posted during this whole complaint-campaign is sad to see. You post lies about the events and contents of the Moderator Discussion Forum, about the contents of PM:s and you associate to older events that happened years ago when a majority the people who support you wasn't even here. In order words, you choose to lie about things that the ordinary members cannot check for themselves.

You think you and your friends "deserve" a lot of things. You and your friends from your own forum are violating Gamebanshee forum rules, flaming Buck, moderators and other members, leaking confidential information from the Moderator Forum and posting lie after lie about things that the members cannot check. Buck has announced he will not discuss the removal of your moderator status. By lying to all the others and claim you didn't do anything but disagreeing, you manipulate them to feel for you. You are safe in your lies because you know there is no way for them to say anything.

You also continue trying to play on sympathies for Lestat by posting: "There isn't even a reason provided for the banning when Lestat tries to access GB, it says something like 'Reason for Banning: None'. Yes, but Lestat knows very well why he was banned.

The point of having such things as 'Major Infractions' and 'Major Flaming' was to cover such incidents that didn't fall under an exact heading.

Your personal opinions of how the infraction system should be used, will not and should not influence Buck's decisions.

You need to realise that this is Buck Satan's message board, not yours, and that your every desire cannot be law here. Gamebanshee has 30000 members, and there is no reason why you should have the right to demand that the opionions and feelings of you and your friends should be more valuable and more listened to than anyone else.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 7:23 am

Damuna_Nova wrote:Xan, that's actually a horrible assumption, you have no proof that the information was spread maliciously, or that Lestat posted what he did with ill intent, I have read that post, and I feel it is as valid as any other point posted here, and in no way inflammatory.

The only thing I can conceive as being wrong with it, is that he quoted the mod forum. That quote could have been removed, and Lestat could have been warned and asked never to post anything like that ever again.

The information spread is spread maliciously. That is not an argument but factual, because it has been taken from a confidential discussion in a closed forum and been spread to people fiercely opposing a recent change in policy in attempt to discredit said decision and the moderators behind various points of it.
Whether or not you find it inflammatory and valid has no relevance on that fact, because Buck did find it as such.
The wording directly targets one small fraction of the debate which were leaked, and specific moderators, and is not even close to being representative for the debate.

Luis Antonio · Post by **Luis Antonio** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 7:24 am

Xandax wrote:The information spread is spread maliciously. That is not an argument but factual, because it has been taken from a confidential discussion in a closed forum and been spread to people fiercely opposing a recent change in policy in attempt to discredit said decision and the moderators behind various points of it.
Whether or not you find it inflammatory and valid has no relevance on that fact, because Buck did find it as such.
The wording directly targets one small fraction of the debate which were leaked, and specific moderators, and is not even close to being representative for the debate.

Then move the full thread to SYM for clarification.

mr_sir · Post by **mr_sir** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 7:26 am

Luis Antonio wrote:That's just erasing the records, Xandax, not solving the problem. Its like leaving the door opened to the thief and killing him when he enters. You'll still have to face it someday, either in the form of justice or in the form of killing more and more people.

Every member is responsible for what he/she posts. Lestat posted something that he should not even have had access to and did so, like Xandax has said, in a way that was worded so that it would rekindle any dying flames and refuel the argument in SYM.

The mods are members too. They are affected by a policy change just like other members. For them to be singled out and targeted purely because of a policy change is, in my opinion, just the same as openly flaming another member.

Luis Antonio · Post by **Luis Antonio** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 7:29 am

C Elegans wrote:

You also continue trying to play on sympathies for Lestat by posting: "There isn't even a reason provided for the banning when Lestat tries to access GB, it says something like 'Reason for Banning: None'. Yes, but Lestat knows very well why he was banned.

I have been banned from moderator discussion and still dont know why. Ravager hasnt lied in this thread and you still point it as if you knewed more about the issue than Ravager and me. But you dont, except perhaps when we were kicked out, it seems by the fellow moderators who were oposition in such thread. I'm still demanding an answer and I still havent got it. Just like Lestat, who was banned and receives a NONE in his face.

mr_sir wrote:Every member is responsible for what he/she posts. Lestat posted something that he should not even have had access to and did so, like Xandax has said, in a way that was worded so that it would rekindle any dying flames and refuel the argument in SYM.

The mods are members too. They are affected by a policy change just like other members. For them to be singled out and targeted purely because of a policy change is, in my opinion, just the same as openly flaming another member.

Yet, it sounds the same as archive erasing.LEstat was not the only one with erased messages.

dj_venom · Post by **dj_venom** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 7:33 am

C Elegans wrote:Ravager, the number of lies you and a few others have posted during this whole complaint-campaign is sad to see. You post lies about the events and contents of the Moderator Discussion Forum, about the contents of PM:s and you associate to older events that happened years ago when a majority the people who support you wasn't even here. In order words, you choose to lie about things that the ordinary members cannot check for themselves.

CE, I asked Xan this, but he didn't respond with examples. Now, I know you are an ardent debator, constantly posting in threads to argue, so I'm certain you'll post some examples to prove what you are saying.

C Elegans wrote:You think you and your friends "deserve" a lot of things. You and your friends from your own forum are violating Gamebanshee forum rules, flaming Buck, moderators and other members, leaking confidential information from the Moderator Forum and posting lie after lie about things that the members cannot check. Buck has announced he will not discuss the removal of your moderator status. By lying to all the others and claim you didn't do anything but disagreeing, you manipulate them to feel for you. You are safe in your lies because you know there is no way for them to say anything.

I consider myself a friend of Ravager. What rule have I broken? And please, you did say his friends, you did not single out people, so I expect you're talking about all of them. Afterall, when we mention mods, we are thought to be talking about all of them.

C Elegans wrote:You also continue trying to play on sympathies for Lestat by posting: "There isn't even a reason provided for the banning when Lestat tries to access GB, it says something like 'Reason for Banning: None'. Yes, but Lestat knows very well why he was banned.

Did you ask him? Because I tried, however he couldn't reach his pm and his email wasn't listed.

C Elegans wrote:You need to realise that this is Buck Satan's message board, not yours, and that your every desire cannot be law here. Gamebanshee has 30000 members, and there is no reason why you should have the right to demand that the opionions and feelings of you and your friends should be more valuable and more listened to than anyone else.

And Chan, make that example 5, the first for CE.

Ravager · Post by **Ravager** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 7:39 am

C Elegans wrote:Ravager, the number of lies you and a few others have posted during this whole complaint-campaign is sad to see. You post lies about the events and contents of the Moderator Discussion Forum, about the contents of PM:s and you associate to older events that happened years ago when a majority the people who support you wasn't even here. In order words, you choose to lie about things that the ordinary members cannot check for themselves.

Okay, provide some proof of these lies you speak of, please.
I believe the members can use the search function to see things that happened before they joined, just as I did.

C Elegans wrote:You think you and your friends "deserve" a lot of things. You and your friends from your own forum are violating Gamebanshee forum rules, flaming Buck, moderators and other members, leaking confidential information from the Moderator Forum and posting lie after lie about things that the members cannot check. Buck has announced he will not discuss the removal of your moderator status. By lying to all the others and claim you didn't do anything but disagreeing, you manipulate them to feel for you. You are safe in your lies because you know there is no way for them to say anything.

Again, you say I lie and provide no proof whatsoever. Hey, isn't that tantamount to flaming a member?

Perhaps you should be reported for that.

And yes, Buck announced he wouldn't discuss it...people have said it's between Luis, myself and Buck. Yet, neither of us have been provided with a reason, it almost seems as if someone didn't want us there but didn't have a cast-iron reason following the rules to do that.

C Elegans wrote:You also continue trying to play on sympathies for Lestat by posting: "There isn't even a reason provided for the banning when Lestat tries to access GB, it says something like 'Reason for Banning: None'. Yes, but Lestat knows very well why he was banned.

Irrelevant. I'm posting a fact and you're just denying that...as I said, Lestat received no official warning or explanation for the ban, pre or post it being handed out. Providing an explanation on GB he cannot even see for himself is hardly adequate.
The software itself says Lestat was banned for no reason.

C Elegans wrote:Your personal opinions of how the infraction system should be used, will not and should not influence Buck's decisions.

Oh, how about yours then? How about Xans, how about fables, how about anyone else's opinion?

Are you in command on GB? Are any of the other mods in command?

C Elegans wrote:You need to realise that this is Buck Satan's message board, not yours, and that your every desire cannot be law here. Gamebanshee has 30000 members, and there is no reason why you should have the right to demand that the opionions and feelings of you and your friends should be more valuable and more listened to than anyone else.

Did I ever say that my every desire should be law? And should your every desire become law? You are a staunch supporter of this, after all.
I'm putting forward a point of view backed up by facts, one that appear to have been ignored...ones that appear to have resulted in my demotion...and don't tell me I can't assume that, because no-one has provided me with the reason otherwise.