snorri forum banned?

[Natewolfman]

Well, things are rough all over. Dealing with the public is never an easy task. I think the best thing to do is to try and place yourself on the firmest ground possible. That way you can spell things out clearly and minimize the possibility of legitimate complaint. There may be legitimate complaints regardless of how firm your footing is, and you just have to address them in good faith and not get defensive about your decisions ("we'll take it under advisement" is a phrase that could come in handy). If someone persists in complaining without valid cause, then a certain amount of patience helps to smooth things over (you catch more flies with honey than you do with shit). Obviously the level of patience for pushback is limited but sometimes you just have to let people blow off steam. So maybe a good approach is to state the case plainly once and then withdraw to a safe distance and let everyone else speak their peace and watch and wait. Probably there will be a brief uproar and then it will settle down. And if it gets out of hand, then obviously the mods have to step back in, but I'm guessing that most of the time the steam will evaporate fairly soon.

well put, and i agree

Since the guidelines were inadequate to clearly and explicitly address this specific issue, then I would not have banned DM for his post, had I been making that decision. I would have accepted that DM skirted around the letter of the rules and immediately locked the thread and edited the phone number out (remember DM removed the number 20 hours after it had been posted). I would also have left a message in that thread saying that the guidelines were being updated and that posting this sort of information would be explicitly forbidden forum-wide when the new guidelines were posted. Instead DM was avowedly banned for "pushing the limits of our forum guidelines" in a message that was clearly angry in tone. That's pretty unprofessional.

The reason i would agree with mods on this one is beacuse of who the offender is... no offence to DM, he has had some pretty entertaining posts, but he also has a track record of pushing the limits and many bans... It would have been smarter to stay away from anything even remotely possible against the rules for a while until his name goes away from the mind of mods. If it was any random person like you or I im sure it would have been just a quick warning as you suggested, but repeat offenders are never taken as lightly, honest mistake or not.

Nikolai suggests that one should "...consider playing by the spirit of the rules, rather than playing to the closest-to-not-the-rules interpretation of the rules you can swing...", and there is something to that notion. However, as long as there are rules governing the behavior of willful human beings, there will be tests of those rules. And what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Think of it as open source forum guidelines development.

This is very true, you will ALWAYS have those wanting to push the limits for no reason other then to do so, its annoying to me personally, but a fact of life, unfortunately...

As to Timmy's sexual, political, and work-related affiliations, I have no comment.

[Juan_Bottom]

you didnt answer my question though, how would you have handled it better?

I didn't see what happened myself, but if I had seen DM posting someone''s number I would have temp banned him too. But after finding out that he did it on behalf of someone, I would have brought him back. I would have chastised him, but I would have brought him back. I don't think the ban originally was wrong, but I don't think the mods understood the situation. But now that they do I am upset about it. They weren't wrong at the time, but I think that they are now.
Plus, DM removed it himself after he thought about it. So it's not like DM was trying to ruin anyone or anything. He was actually being a nice guy. Same goes for the mods. But IMO this has gone much further than it should have.

[Johnny Rockets]

Well put, Juan.

Yeah, mustard has a history of douchbaggery, but I truly believe there was no malicious intent. If he had a history of posting private phone numbers in the past then perhaps the knee jerk reaction was justified, but in this case the mods didn't communicate and reacted poorly.

But even that is o.k. We all make mistakes. But to not admit it and carry on with the error damages credibility and then makes it harder for the admin and mods to be taken seriously the next time an incident like this pops up.

Everyone should be aware that this is a private site and of course Lack can do as he pleases and whenever he pleases. But incidents like these where the right thing is not done, and folks start adding to the brew of discontent. The powers that be should be aware that the Premiums who pay the rent here will "vote with their wallets" if the level of service and quality drops below what a membership is worth.

When good players leave, when mods act like pocket dictators, when good maps have to be replaced, but are replaced with something deemed as unsatisfactory, you then have 25% less traffic like we do now.

J

[Snorri1234]

The reason i would agree with mods on this one is beacuse of who the offender is...

"I arrested that man for not having his lights on while others doing the same thing drove past because I didn't like him."

See, I understand the fact that people who infringe the rules more often get heavier punishments, that is a sensible rule. But you can't make something an offense for some people and not for others. DM got a month-long ban because he previously broke the rules, but the incident for which he was banned is not ban-worthy or even warning-worthy. What he did wasn't against the rules, and just because the mods were planning to make it against the rules doesn't mean they should begin enforcing them already.


Thats why Mittens suggestion is good. If someone finds a loophole in the law, you stop him from using it by doing what is in your power (in this case mods have total control over locking and editing at their discretion) and then finding a way to repair the loophole. You don't prosecute the person for finding that loophole.

[timmytuttut88]

As to Timmy's sexual, political, and work-related affiliations, I have no comment.

[/quote]
Jesus christ it was just an example. Do you really think i'm an independent bisexual who hates my boss?

[barterer2002]

As to Timmy's sexual, political, and work-related affiliations, I have no comment.

Jesus christ it was just an example. Do you really think i'm an independent bisexual who hates my boss?[/quote]

Of course, I read it on the internet so it must be true.

[daydream]

As to Timmy's sexual, political, and work-related affiliations, I have no comment.

Jesus christ it was just an example. Do you really think i'm an independent bisexual who hates my boss?

Of course, I read it on the internet so it must be true.[/quote]

also, there is porn of it.

[StiffMittens]

As to Timmy's sexual, political, and work-related affiliations, I have no comment.

Jesus christ it was just an example. Do you really think i'm an independent bisexual who hates my boss?

When you get right down to it, who isn't?

[yeti_c]

but the incident for which he was banned is not ban-worthy or even warning-worthy. What he did wasn't against the rules

It's always been against the rules to post peoples personal information.

C.

[MeDeFe]

but the incident for which he was banned is not ban-worthy or even warning-worthy. What he did wasn't against the rules

It's always been against the rules to post peoples personal information.

C.

Only for attacks in Flame Wars. The rule has not applied anywhere else.

[yeti_c]

but the incident for which he was banned is not ban-worthy or even warning-worthy. What he did wasn't against the rules

It's always been against the rules to post peoples personal information.

C.

Only for attacks in Flame Wars. The rule has not applied anywhere else.

Posting someones personal information IS AN ATTACK.

C.

[Natewolfman]

i agree with yeti... and while you *might* be able to argue that the person wanted his info posted... what if he didnt? if im incorrect, that player was no longer a part of this site, so whats to stop DM, or even myself from posting personal information of say... wicked, and telling everyone that they told me to when in fact they didnt? No true way of prooving it since said user does not have the ability to post here...

[MeDeFe]

but the incident for which he was banned is not ban-worthy or even warning-worthy. What he did wasn't against the rules

It's always been against the rules to post peoples personal information.

C.

Only for attacks in Flame Wars. The rule has not applied anywhere else.

Posting someones personal information IS AN ATTACK.

C.

So if I post my own personal information it is an attack on myself?
I read DM's post after it had been moved, if that post qualifies as an "attack" you just attacked me by using all caps. That's how mild I'd rate it.

[Juan_Bottom]

I read DM's post after it had been moved, if that post qualifies as an "attack" you just attacked me by using all caps. That's how mild I'd rate it.

It's funny cause it's true.

[Natewolfman]

but the incident for which he was banned is not ban-worthy or even warning-worthy. What he did wasn't against the rules

It's always been against the rules to post peoples personal information.

C.

Only for attacks in Flame Wars. The rule has not applied anywhere else.

Posting someones personal information IS AN ATTACK.

C.

So if I post my own personal information it is an attack on myself?
I read DM's post after it had been moved, if that post qualifies as an "attack" you just attacked me by using all caps. That's how mild I'd rate it.

but then wouldnt that be the most cleaver of attacks? make it seem like its not one beacuse the owner of the # cannot respond to deny what he has posted? not saying that is true, but it COULD have been true, and for me, id rather a mod stop a person who *might* be illegally posting someones info then allow someone who *might* have a right to post it...

[Juan_Bottom]

The owner of the number asked him to post it.
And since we all know that, who cares about what-ifs?
Why doesn't the leadership just admit that they don't know everything once in a while? I certainly have.

[MeDeFe]

It's always been against the rules to post peoples personal information.

C.

Only for attacks in Flame Wars. The rule has not applied anywhere else.

Posting someones personal information IS AN ATTACK.

C.

So if I post my own personal information it is an attack on myself?
I read DM's post after it had been moved, if that post qualifies as an "attack" you just attacked me by using all caps. That's how mild I'd rate it.

but then wouldnt that be the most cleaver of attacks? make it seem like its not one beacuse the owner of the # cannot respond to deny what he has posted? not saying that is true, but it COULD have been true, and for me, id rather a mod stop a person who *might* be illegally posting someones info then allow someone who *might* have a right to post it...

Good thinking, except that DM had already removed the phone number of his own accord, or is that just one more clever ploy? It also appears Semigall PMd DM so it should be no big task for the admins to verify check their logs and verify whether such a message was sent to DM or not. I recall there have been some editing of PMs in the past, offending links to external pages about CC have been removed, the names of officials who save "trillions of dollars" for CC have been censored, that sort of thing, so the access is definitely there and being used. At least it's being used when it suits the management.

[StiffMittens]

but then wouldnt that be the most cleaver of attacks? make it seem like its not one beacuse the owner of the # cannot respond to deny what he has posted? not saying that is true, but it COULD have been true, and for me, id rather a mod stop a person who *might* be illegally posting someones info then allow someone who *might* have a right to post it...

Stop? yes (a simple mod edit and thread lock would do it). Ban? no. Also, as far as I know there was nothing preventing Semigall from responding. It sounds like he chose not to respond because he was simply fed up with the whole idea of debating on a web forum. Nobody ever answered my earlier question about whether the mods even contacted Semigall about this. Is he even aware of the consequences of his PM now? Just out of curiosity, what is his reaction to DM's ban?

[lancehoch]

The owner of the number asked him to post it.
And since we all know that, who cares about what-ifs?
Why doesn't the leadership just admit that they don't know everything once in a while? I certainly have.

It sets a bad precedent. Because then someone can come in and say, well you let this person do it, so I should not get banned because this other person did not explicitly say that I could not post his info.

[MeDeFe]

The owner of the number asked him to post it.
And since we all know that, who cares about what-ifs?
Why doesn't the leadership just admit that they don't know everything once in a while? I certainly have.

It sets a bad precedent. Because then someone can come in and say, well you let this person do it, so I should not get banned because this other person did not explicitly say that I could not post his info.

The precedent will be irrelevant once the rules are finally properly updated. Punishing people because they do something that's against a rule that has yet to be implemented sets an even worse precedent.

[Natewolfman]

but then wouldnt that be the most cleaver of attacks? make it seem like its not one beacuse the owner of the # cannot respond to deny what he has posted? not saying that is true, but it COULD have been true, and for me, id rather a mod stop a person who *might* be illegally posting someones info then allow someone who *might* have a right to post it...

Good thinking, except that DM had already removed the phone number of his own accord, or is that just one more clever ploy? It also appears Semigall PMd DM so it should be no big task for the admins to verify check their logs and verify whether such a message was sent to DM or not. I recall there have been some editing of PMs in the past, offending links to external pages about CC have been removed, the names of officials who save "trillions of dollars" for CC have been censored, that sort of thing, so the access is definitely there and being used. At least it's being used when it suits the management.

im not saying that DM did this with malicious intent, in fact im pretty certain he did not, however i can see whare the mods are comming from definately. as i said i would rather mods stop someone who is potentially posting up personal info for wrong doings, then allow one up that may be legit and have every member of CC calling my phone...

[MeDeFe]

but then wouldnt that be the most cleaver of attacks? make it seem like its not one beacuse the owner of the # cannot respond to deny what he has posted? not saying that is true, but it COULD have been true, and for me, id rather a mod stop a person who *might* be illegally posting someones info then allow someone who *might* have a right to post it...

Good thinking, except that DM had already removed the phone number of his own accord, or is that just one more clever ploy? It also appears Semigall PMd DM so it should be no big task for the admins to verify check their logs and verify whether such a message was sent to DM or not. I recall there have been some editing of PMs in the past, offending links to external pages about CC have been removed, the names of officials who save "trillions of dollars" for CC have been censored, that sort of thing, so the access is definitely there and being used. At least it's being used when it suits the management.

im not saying that DM did this with malicious intent, in fact im pretty certain he did not, however i can see whare the mods are comming from definately. as i said i would rather mods stop someone who is potentially posting up personal info for wrong doings, then allow one up that may be legit and have every member of CC calling my phone...

That could have been achieved in a far less heavy-handed manner. A warning and maybe an announcement that posting anyone elses personal information will be forbidden under the new, yet-to-be-implemented guidelines, even if you have obtained permission/been asked to post them.
Banning people for posting information that someone else has asked them to post and that is in itself not against the guidelines is simply ridculous.

[nagerous]

but then wouldnt that be the most cleaver of attacks? make it seem like its not one beacuse the owner of the # cannot respond to deny what he has posted? not saying that is true, but it COULD have been true, and for me, id rather a mod stop a person who *might* be illegally posting someones info then allow someone who *might* have a right to post it...

Good thinking, except that DM had already removed the phone number of his own accord, or is that just one more clever ploy? It also appears Semigall PMd DM so it should be no big task for the admins to verify check their logs and verify whether such a message was sent to DM or not. I recall there have been some editing of PMs in the past, offending links to external pages about CC have been removed, the names of officials who save "trillions of dollars" for CC have been censored, that sort of thing, so the access is definitely there and being used. At least it's being used when it suits the management.

im not saying that DM did this with malicious intent, in fact im pretty certain he did not, however i can see whare the mods are comming from definately. as i said i would rather mods stop someone who is potentially posting up personal info for wrong doings, then allow one up that may be legit and have every member of CC calling my phone...

I'm pretty sure there are few people here who would actually ever bother calling the number ,people talk the talk but limited action is actually taken. This is not 4chan, it is a primarily risk -based website and people frankly have better things to do with their time. So you support Mustard's month ban for one edited post after 8000 or so posts in the past, where he didn't post people's personal information?

[Snorri1234]

but then wouldnt that be the most cleaver of attacks? make it seem like its not one beacuse the owner of the # cannot respond to deny what he has posted? not saying that is true, but it COULD have been true, and for me, id rather a mod stop a person who *might* be illegally posting someones info then allow someone who *might* have a right to post it...

Good thinking, except that DM had already removed the phone number of his own accord, or is that just one more clever ploy? It also appears Semigall PMd DM so it should be no big task for the admins to verify check their logs and verify whether such a message was sent to DM or not. I recall there have been some editing of PMs in the past, offending links to external pages about CC have been removed, the names of officials who save "trillions of dollars" for CC have been censored, that sort of thing, so the access is definitely there and being used. At least it's being used when it suits the management.

im not saying that DM did this with malicious intent, in fact im pretty certain he did not, however i can see whare the mods are comming from definately. as i said i would rather mods stop someone who is potentially posting up personal info for wrong doings, then allow one up that may be legit and have every member of CC calling my phone...

YEAH LETS BAN EVERYONE WHO DOESN'T KNOW ABOUT RULES THAT DON'T EXIST! f*ck THEIR INTENT, I'D RATHER SEE 100 INNOCENT MEN BE KILLED THAN ONE GUILTY MAN WALK!