Starfleet Jedi

Cpl Kendall wrote:Part of the reason why the thread was locked was because you posted an OP with nothing in it and expected people to cater to your whims. I suspect if you had filled in the blanks yourself you would have found that an actual discussion might have taken place and it would have remained open.

SDN is no doubt free to do as they wish with people. Banning, IMO, by the sheer heck of it. You don't like someone just because of the username? Heck, ban them. You don't need to try to justify it to others.

Of course, it's best to keep in mind that others will be judging you based on your behavior. Sometimes they might end up disliking you because they think the banning was unfair, wrong or for whatever other reason. That's something you're also going to have to live with.

As for the thread itself. To me it seemed more like he posted a thread with the goal of quantifying a Marine. To this end he even posted a bunch of rather specific questions to get the details he wanted or thought were important.

I'm sorry, but to me this just doesn't equal someone expecting others to "cater to his whims". Call me crazy, but people asking questions on forums seems rather common to me. In fact, threads that ask the simple question of "how good/impressive is x" seems to be crawling around forums that regularly deal with vs. debating.

And if someone reading the thread doesn't feel like partaking in the discussion, they can choose not to do so.

Actually leetel, he was banned for flaming a mod for doing his job.

l33telboi wrote:

Cpl Kendall wrote:Part of the reason why the thread was locked was because you posted an OP with nothing in it and expected people to cater to your whims. I suspect if you had filled in the blanks yourself you would have found that an actual discussion might have taken place and it would have remained open.

SDN is no doubt free to do as they wish with people. Banning, IMO, by the sheer heck of it. You don't like someone just because of the username? Heck, ban them. You don't need to try to justify it to others.

You will no doubt now point out where somebody was banned at SDN because of their username, as opposed to being banned for clearly violating the board rules. Like, you know, OmniWhiner.

WolfRitter wrote:Actually leetel, he was banned for flaming a mod for doing his job.

Ouch. Still, was it a permaban? It's not like places like SDN or SB.com never get their fare share of heated exchanges.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:It's not like places like SDN or SB.com never get their fare share of heated exchanges.

True, however at SDN, they clearly spell out in the rules that there is a difference between flaming a mod for his views on a particular subject that they are discussing (which is perfectly allowed as far as I know) and flaming them for doing their job, which is a bannable offensive in and of itself. And yes, I do believe it was a permanent ban.

Socar wrote:

Mr. Oragahn wrote:It's not like places like SDN or SB.com never get their fare share of heated exchanges.

True, however at SDN, they clearly spell out in the rules that there is a difference between flaming a mod for his views on a particular subject that they are discussing (which is perfectly allowed as far as I know)

It is, and happens all the time.

and flaming them for doing their job, which is a bannable offensive in and of itself.

Exactly.

l33telboi wrote:
SDN is no doubt free to do as they wish with people. Banning, IMO, by the sheer heck of it. You don't like someone just because of the username? Heck, ban them. You don't need to try to justify it to others.

Of course, it's best to keep in mind that others will be judging you based on your behavior. Sometimes they might end up disliking you because they think the banning was unfair, wrong or for whatever other reason. That's something you're also going to have to live with.

He was banned for flaming a mod for doing his job a big no-no which is clearly spelled out as a no-no in the board rules. Other than that, what does any of this have to do with my post?

As for the thread itself. To me it seemed more like he posted a thread with the goal of quantifying a Marine. To this end he even posted a bunch of rather specific questions to get the details he wanted or thought were important.

I'm sorry, but to me this just doesn't equal someone expecting others to "cater to his whims". Call me crazy, but people asking questions on forums seems rather common to me. In fact, threads that ask the simple question of "how good/impressive is x" seems to be crawling around forums that regularly deal with vs. debating.

And if someone reading the thread doesn't feel like partaking in the discussion, they can choose not to do so.

He posted a thread with zero content and asked for people to fill it in for him. How is that not asking to be catered too? Besides around SDN zero content posts get locked. Not to mention he griped about not being able to edit his post, when if he had carefully read the forum FAQ he would have known that was impossible.

OmniBack wrote:I'd have to agree that SDN is run pretty bad, and full of very stupid people (Some may be actually smart when it comes to math/science, but they're still retards)

Batman wrote:Like, you know, OmniWhiner.

A quick note to the two of you. I realize you're both fairly new here and haven't made many posts yet, but I recommend you read the board rules with an eye towards determining the acceptable level of name-calling here.

Batman wrote:You will no doubt now point out where somebody was banned at SDN because of their username,

Why? I never said someone has been banned because of their username. I said i think a privately owned board is no doubt allowed to do so if they want.

as opposed to being banned for clearly violating the board rules. Like, you know, OmniWhiner.

And if you notice, i responded to was the "catering to his whims" bit in what Kendall said.

Cpl Kendall wrote:Other than that, what does any of this have to do with my post?

It's my opinion on the matter. Yeah i know, i sometimes have this tendency to ramble on and give opinions in threads regarding certain subjects.

As for why he was banned. I don't care, that's what the whole "you're free to ban whoever you like" i suppose to mean.

He posted a thread with zero content and asked for people to fill it in for him. How is that not asking to be catered too?

Define it as you wish. Like i said, these kinds of threads pop up all the time. "How strong is this?", "Can someone quantify that?" etc. In fact the exact identical thread was posted on SB, but i can't remember anyone taking offense to it.

And actually, he did provide at least one quote from the manual to start filling in the gaps himself. So zero content wouldn't a definition that's quite right, eh?

Besides around SDN zero content posts get locked. Not to mention he griped about not being able to edit his post, when if he had carefully read the forum FAQ he would have known that was impossible.

Indeed. Like i already wrote. I don't care much for why he was banned, IMO, you can ban whomever you want whenever you want if you so choose to. Board-owner would decide.

What i found strange was the "Cater to his whims" part. Which is why i guess that's pretty much all my initial post deals with. Simple, no?

Okay here's the deal, in a thread called 'Can the Borg Assimilate a Founder' Omniback was arguing that the Borg culd beat the Dominion, simple enough, however, he tried to use the calcs of a banned member (Who went to SB) and argued that he shouldn't have to come up with his own calcs.

He was also acting as a mouthpiece, when accused of this he told the moderator Dalton 'Fuck You' (I assume everyone knows that this changes profanity into a more PC form) when Dalton was attempting to ascertain the situation and said he was not acting as a mouthpiece for a banned user and was posting those calcs because Vivftp asked him to, clearly a contradiction. Violating AR3 (If you are upset at a staff member for doing his job, contact a different one) & AR6 (Flaming the staff for their views is acceptable, flaming them for doing their job is not) as well as YUP3 (Users may not have sockpuppet accounts and those that evade a prior ban or help another do so will be immediately banned).

WolfRitter wrote:Okay here's the deal, in a thread called 'Can the Borg Assimilate a Founder' Omniback was arguing that the Borg culd beat the Dominion, simple enough, however, he tried to use the calcs of a banned member (Who went to SB) and argued that he shouldn't have to come up with his own calcs.

Oh, i was viewing the thread as well, so i know what was going on. I quite enjoy the threads that end up Hosed.

Actually, thinking about it, i probably know more then anyone on either SDN or SFJ about this since i happened to be in the chat when Viv went bezerk because someone used his calcs that he didn't support himself.

On an almost related note. I don't see why using calcs other people have made should somehow be a no-no. People have done that since the beginning of vs. debating.

He was also acting as a mouthpiece, when accused of this he told the moderator Dalton 'I don't like you very much' (I assume everyone knows that this changes profanity into a more PC form) when Dalton was attempting to ascertain the situation and said he was not acting as a mouthpiece for a banned user and was posting those calcs because Vivftp asked him to, clearly a contradiction.

Viv never asked OmniBack to post those calculations, in fact he went apeshit when he realized what was happening. What he did was that he PM'd Omni telling him that he didn't support those calcs and that he should either drop the matter or tell SDN members this. OmniBack decided to drop the matter and inform the people that viv didn't agree with them. In other words, he conceeded the argument.

Funny thing though. I remember it being Viv telling you who OmniBack was and you then relaying that info to SDN. Wouldn't that make you Viv's mouthpiece as well?

Violating AR3 (If you are upset at a staff member for doing his job, contact a different one) & AR6 (Flaming the staff for their views is acceptable, flaming them for doing their job is not) as well as YUP3 (Users may not have sockpuppet accounts and those that evade a prior ban or help another do so will be immediately banned).

I already said it twice, but i suppose saying it a third time can't hurt. I don't care about who or why someone is banned. You don't have to try to justify it to me, i don't really care, you can go 'lol he smells bad' and ban him if you so wanted.

l33telboi wrote:

Batman wrote:You will no doubt now point out where somebody was banned at SDN because of their username,

Why? I never said someone has been banned because of their username. I said i think a privately owned board is no doubt allowed to do so if they want.
Kendall said.

You know, upon rereading your post, I DO seem to have rather misunderstood your meaning. I apologize and withdraw my comment.

l33telboi wrote:
Define it as you wish. Like i said, these kinds of threads pop up all the time. "How strong is this?", "Can someone quantify that?" etc. In fact the exact identical thread was posted on SB, but i can't remember anyone taking offense to it.

And actually, he did provide at least one quote from the manual to start filling in the gaps himself. So zero content wouldn't a definition that's quite right, eh?

Your just playing semantic games now. The mods decide what constitutes zero content posts on SDN and Ghost Rider obviously felt that this was worthless.

Cpl Kendall wrote:Your just playing semantic games now. The mods decide what constitutes zero content posts on SDN and Ghost Rider obviously felt that this was worthless.

"Semantics game"? No, i think what i've done is pretty far from playing around with semantics. Ghost Rider might've thought the post was worthless, good for him. He's free to do as he pleases.

I don't see the problem with the post however.