General Warning Tally for users...

For technical issues, problems, bugs, suggestions on improving these forums, discussion of the rules, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by Praeothmin » Fri May 18, 2012 12:01 pm

The difference between you and me is, I didn't go off the deep end ragin on and on to Mike anJMS about how you were considering to leave, and they had to make a choice between you and SWST...

When I had enough of his BS, I followed my advice and ignored his replies...
When I felt like replying, I did...
But I did not let get to my head, like you, and started belittling the way the situation was handlded, nor did I throw a temper tantrum and throw around ultimatums...

When I wanted to, I walked away, something you can't seem to do...
Even now, he's gone, and still you'tre hung up on this...

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Fri May 18, 2012 6:33 pm

Mike DiCenso wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote: On this same logic we can also ignore spambots. After all, they're not different: they don't bring quality to the board, they don't care about proper debating, and they produce parasitic irrelevant noise. We civilized men could just ignore them. Your job would surely be simpler and less tiring.
That is a big flawed premise; first off a spambot doesn't know or care. It's just a deaf and dumb piece of software that scans sites and posts an ad on it, if it can get away with it. The agency behind said spambot is somethnig all but completely out of mine or anyone else's ability to do anything about. SWST and KSW on the other hand, as far as I know, are human beings deliberately engaging in discourse here with their posts. They are people that you can ignore, engage with and you will get a response and so on. Furthermore they are aware of their actions having consequences.
Which for all intents and purposes, make them FAR WORSE than the spambots, don't you think? :)
Let's apply the full extent of that logic to this particular and quite absurd case, and let's be surprised - or not - at the incredible similarity you unwittingly pointed out.

first off a spambot doesn't know or care. It's just a deaf and dumb piece of software that scans sites and posts an ad on it, if it can get away with it.
Ditto for a troll. It clearly displays the same traits: totally deaf and careless. Doesn't listen nor doesn't want to. In fact, it's even worse because behind the troll, there's a constant malice at work, while the spambot only lives to enforce the sole reason of its genesis, and is actually totally neutral in that regard. The only ill occurred at its conception. After that, it's a constant soulless repetition. The troll is a human, who uses intelligence to compute its input and deliver a specific output. It largely knows what he does and is aware of it. The spambot can't even react to a warning. The troll can, but has no intent to bother aside from adapting, as part of his duplicity, in order to look like he did register the warning and the meaning of it.
All it takes is a moderator who, aware of this, knows that nothing will be obtained. The only reason the troll is maintained is the hope that change will occur, as if by repeating the same task on and on, a quirk of fate might finally make the troll break his behaviour and turn into a saint. Because there's that idea that the individual can learn. He should have learned, if he had been honest about it. That's the whole problem here. Honesty. He had none of it, and we all knew it. So if we're to ignore the useless crap, then let the spambots in. After all, yes, we can also skim over their silly threads - spambots rarely post or don't even post in already existing threads.

Mr. Oragahn wrote: Does it even need to be repeated how the "ignore him" argument is just poppycock? I've already pointed out how even if we had all ignored him, the nuisance he presented still was very real. I'm honestly tired of hearing about that argument from people who have done a very poor job of following their own advice.
After his intital appearance here, I took to largely refraining from responding to SWST, except in certain circumstances. I don't know what happened to WILGA, but he stopped responding to KSW and SWST. Trinoya largely did. See a person when they realize they're being ignored would start hopefully putting it together that what they're doing is wrong.
The troll knows what he's doing. He doesn't care. He isn't there to learn anything and improve. That's the illusion you guys really had to dispose of.
The problem of the recurring temporary ban is that, as I already said too many times, it requires members and staff to do extra work for nothing. The point of bans is to educate members.
You don't educate trolls. You simply were foolish. Fools can't deal with trolls, and it's been demonstrated on the large reality that you even had to wait for Trinoya to end this circus instead of you.
But there's another point you missed. A big one on why the advice of ignoring SWST was given. It is obvious that you and others were getting way too overly angered by SWST to remain rational. You and especially Mojo went and did some outageously stupid things, even when I and to a lesser extent Praeo were managing to get numerous warnings and eventually bans to stick on SWST.
Excuse me but is the fact that I wasn't cool like a psychopath masking the fact that my positions were largely based on sound reason? I think the long posts detailing my position largely demonstrate that. I took time to explain everything, so please let's not try to brush all of this with the back of the hand with accusations of excessive emotions. What irritated me was the clear evidence that two visions were clashing here, mine and one which I found completely weak and idiotic. What I also found irritating was how you'd give SWST the benefit of doubt. Here's an example of your baffling memory reset. You know, the "if he's truly trolling" bit. That's the kinda crap that really put me off, after all the work, the reports, the multiple bans, and the fact that everybody knew, save for JMS apparently, who SWST was.

The reality is that if Trinoya hadn't banned him, we'd still be dealing with SWST on even newer topics where he'd find plenty of amusement baiting people.
Didn't you see him trying to bait me and some other people in the 40K threads right before he was permabanned?
If he had not been banned, even if we ignored him, he would have still posted his drivel in clean and respectable threads. Not only that, but it would have honestly been annoying to see him spread his lies and cloud the minds of readers, those guests who came here from search engines for example.

It is not because people don't answer to trolls that they are to be allowed to bait people!

That's another point in fact. Do we want threads of quality, or do we just have to ignore the pollution?
You "ignore him" plebe don't realize that this position doesn't stop pollution. In fact, if you really ignore a troll, you can't even report anything of what he does. It's totally silly.

Mr. Oragahn wrote: This position is insane and quite dishonest if I may say. It's completely fucking NUTS to force the community through a mental labour that requires ignoring every possible manifestation of the nuisance as much as possible, because it cleary implies the admission that the nuisance is perfectly identified as such and known to be worthless, and therefore, instead of clearing the board of that pest, some madmen like you and Praeothmin prefer to keep it around and instead have decent members do the work, just for the kicks of supposedly keeping our precious form of free speech around, or the beauty of debate or any kind of similar hogwash that only lures a few lost souls. It has failed, and will continue to do so. We have free speech, but only for those who deserve it, and I think we’re still a thousand times more lenient on those criteria than all those major boards we’ve been criticizing.
That's only if you ignore the context of the situations as they happened. You were getting overly worked up and the advice was given to you in that context several times as I recall. If that was not communicated well enough, then my apologies.
I don't really see what the "context", which I know fully well, changes anything to the fact that the required denial of SWST's existence but allowance of his presence is neither logical nor smart.
In fact, it's a complete lack of responsibility and decency towards other members, present and future. I don't even know why you still defend that line even now that JMS has tweaked the rules and allowed permanent bans if facing a critical situation.

Let's notice though that he hasn't changed the enforcement policy part.
I can already tell you that 1 or 2 days long bans are useless. The first one, you just have to disconnect and with luck you may already be able to log in like 25 hours later.
If the first ban of one day is there to act as a major warning towards the members, I don't think the two days long one is strong enough. Tripling the duration, rounded up to the next range (day, week, month) would be far more convincing and easing on both the community and the staff.
Likewise, I don't see point of bothering with a system that stretches beyond 1 month long ban. Notice that in order to reach that duration, you already need to have been banned no less than FIVE times! It's needless excessive. Well beyond what is needed for any reasonable mind to learn the lesson, surely.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: Not to say that Mods have a duty, that is to protect the board. Their duty is not to give the finger to members and ask them to do something as silly as mentally filtering anything that could be written by trolls, which is requiring, in the end, that the members do an effort. Hello? There’s no effort to require from members there. Respect them for crying out loud. The nice people aren’t to be held responsible of any disturbance resulting from an interaction with an infectious agent. SWST are Jasonb aren’t vaccines dammit!
I used this analogy before, I'll remind you of it again. To put it simply, the law as was set down by JMS applies equally. Going on destructive rants against SWST served no purpose except to draw unwarranted attention to the more obvious disturbance. That is you, Breetai, and especially Mojo.
The problem is that despite the pressure, it should have been better to discuss with JMS about the rules instead of applying them purely based on theory, when they proved inadequate.
Because this is the crux of the problem: we had no empirical retrospective to know if the rules were good or not when facing trolls. We never had any.
As such, in blindly applying the rules, and focusing at times on the simple violations and not on SWST, your moderation doctrine proved imperfect imho, and the board suffered for that, that is all. If you don't agree, fine, but that will remain my opinion, and visibly shared by some other members.
Now, we're moving on and yet, I noticed that it is certainly not helped by the lack of transparency, the accusations of lies I read here and the warning system which JMS admitted being not clear enough. There still is work to be done, and we're yet to see a proper discussion on the necessary overhaul btw.
Perhaps we should open a thread for that?
I was the patient detective building an airtight case against SWST (which worked, I'll remind you, even though it took longer) so that JMS, who was very active in those days, could not keep overturning warnings and bans. So while I was doing that, Mojo goes out and does the internet version of a riot. Burning and overturning cars and looting. It does not help to do that, you know. Oops, gotta drop being the patient detective to go do riot control and knock some heads together. It just means that the limited staff here has to deal with that it. I lost a lot of time dealing with SWST because of Mojo, whether he likes to admit it or not.
The case already was airtight weeks before. Look, that thread was started when SWST had already gone through several bans.

Oh, grin, look what I found:
StarWarsStarTrek wrote:2. I'm no grammar nazi, but your prose should at least be legible.
And he wasn't talking to Jasonb. :)

We’re damn lucky that we don't have that many new members. Or would you be chasing them and making public announcements about how they should ignore member X or Y. They would all go WTF? Some would obviously ask why you haven't permabanned X or Y then, we're ALL supposed to ignore them. What's the point keeping them around, aside from taking the stupid risk to have anyone feed the trolls by inadvertence and allowing said trolls to pollute the board with even the ability to post new threads which they obviously don’t even begin to deserve? Is the lunacy of that situation just that impossible for you to grasp or what??
Telling people to ignore trolls is an age old tactic that goes back to the earliest days of Usenet. But see above, your rant here doesn't change the facts, and you obviously missed or ignored key events and context of the advice given.
ASVS wasn't built on the same premise as SFJN was. Going by what I remember of ASVS, the rules were quite different and the place was a real mess.
Why do you think it's a good example?

Mike DiCenso wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote: Change strategies against the admin. If you haven't laughed yet, now might be a good time!
Don't you remember that JMS' sort of revelation about his abdication actually came several bans too late, well after the whole thing already went down the drain?
Here again you missed what I was saying. But that's not suprising as you are getting all hot headed again instead of thinking rationally. When giving SWST bans for the obvious infractions was not working, then giving him infraction warnings based on detailed evidence of a continued pattern (my patient detective work) and asking people to document it in detail are what won the day as JMS did not "abdicate" his postion until fairly recently. But even then, just because JMS stepped down doesn't mean that I will throw away his rules. That's a silppery slope I refuse to go down since many of those rules are put in place to prevent this place from turning into a mini-SDN. The worst part is Praeo stepped down before JMS did and we lost him at a critical juncture in this whole sorry mess. Trinoya came in far too late, and I have no idea at this point how he'll do as a mod.
1. If giving SWST bans for the infractions wasn't working, then you should have permabanned him right there, and should have also argued for that decision with JMS until you got it.
Also, as I want to be understood here, I hope what I wrote here isn't too irrational or out of context. :P

2. JMS stepped down from ruling before we "won the day". In fact, I don't even know what Trinoya read of those reports to decide to deal with SWST so swiftly, but it is he, and not you, who recently permabanned SWST. And that wasn't even a given considering this:

I challenge darkstar to a debate, page 29:
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 349#p41349
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 498#p41498
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 533#p41533
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 553#p41553

3. This can't turn into a mini-SDN, Mike, for the simple reason that we actually LET people make new arguments and leave them plenty of room to make their point if they can behave, and the moderation is encouraged to act transparently (but we need a clearer system!). The only moment it will be SDN is not because you permaban people, but because you do it on false premises and do it internally, without letting the defendant any recourse, and if the sanctions drop in the most disgusting way.
Above all, SDN and SBC working the same way, and knowing a lot about the second one regarding moderation, I know that here, at SFJN, it is not a crime to disagree about sanctions and finding them unfair (at least if you don't abuse it and if you've proved you were willing to improve): you wouldn't get another ban for that right off the bat. Oh, and there's the fact that on SBC, they didn't care much about the infraction points (our warnings here) at all.
See, I think we're a far way from turning into a mini-SDN.

You all should look back at this thread, its first pages. You'd suddenly remember how it was already way too obvious that we had a troll on our hands and yet nothing was being done. We went one nearly one full year on this insane convoy.

Now, thankfully, the staff seems to have learned their lesson.

However, I'm quite eager to know how you think you should handle JasonB. Notably, if you believe that his style is compatible with the following parts of the rules:
All discourse is to be reasonable, polite, and informative.

Act in good faith. Trolling, dishonesty, and other forms of insincere behavior may be penalized at our discretion.

The following are very good pieces of advice:
Check spelling and grammar before posting. If you have a lot of trouble with that (or with server lag), consider writing your posts up with a word processor first. Spellcheck, grammar check, and then copy and paste.
Up to you guys. I think that when JMS wrote those rules, what he had in mind consisted of people respecting each other, which implied a clear minimal level of quality regarding the behaviour.
Last edited by Mr. Oragahn on Fri May 18, 2012 6:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Fri May 18, 2012 6:36 pm

Praeothmin wrote:The difference between you and me is, I didn't go off the deep end ragin on and on to Mike anJMS about how you were considering to leave, and they had to make a choice between you and SWST...

When I had enough of his BS, I followed my advice and ignored his replies...
When I felt like replying, I did...
But I did not let get to my head, like you, and started belittling the way the situation was handlded, nor did I throw a temper tantrum and throw around ultimatums...

When I wanted to, I walked away, something you can't seem to do...
Even now, he's gone, and still you'tre hung up on this...
With respect, that's just absurdly excessive from you.
Considering what the lack of proper moderation generated, I don't understand why you'd prefer we forget about it, as it serves as a great lesson. There's certainly nothing to bury here.
Besides, let me tell you that I think it would have been better if the moment JMS overturned a very few of your decisions as a moderator, you had not silently sidestepped and relinquished your responsibilities, therefore leaving Mike with a mess on his sole hands, especially considering how he kept saying he was wasting his time on other cases - and we know that managing SWST required quite some time, if only to keep track of all the things he kept rebooting - a time lost when, again, banning the troll earlier on, when we already had all the evidence we needed, would have been simpler - a point I kept hammering but apparently which also kept flying above your collective heads, go figure! I still don't get why you abdicated so fast the moment JMS frowned a tad upon your warning actions. I was accused of being childish with my ultimatum, but running away just because the admin contradicts you on your moderation was hardly more mature. Or did I miss something?
Point is, I don't think that was a good way to handle the situation. If anything, we needed more forces, not less.
Meanwhile, I'll just point to this post and leave it at that.

I also hope Mojo will get an answer to his request, as I honestly can't see how his very limited antics proved to be so time consuming.

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by Praeothmin » Fri May 18, 2012 6:45 pm

Mr. O. wrote:I was accused of being childish with my ultimatum, but running away just because the admin contradicts you on your moderation was hardly more mature. Or did I miss something?
Valid POV, even if I don't agree with it...

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by mojo » Sat May 19, 2012 2:14 am

mike, you read that last post, buddy? refusal to acknowledge can be considered implicit concession, you know. are you admitting you're not fit to run the board?

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by Mike DiCenso » Sat May 19, 2012 8:30 am

No such thing. Give it a rest, Mojo. I would also point out that demanding a concession from someone is a violation of the rules JMS set forth, and that is precisely what you are doing here.
-Mike

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by Mike DiCenso » Sat May 19, 2012 8:51 am

1. If giving SWST bans for the infractions wasn't working, then you should have permabanned him right there, and should have also argued for that decision with JMS until you got it.
Also, as I want to be understood here, I hope what I wrote here isn't too irrational or out of context. :P

2. JMS stepped down from ruling before we "won the day". In fact, I don't even know what Trinoya read of those reports to decide to deal with SWST so swiftly, but it is he, and not you, who recently permabanned SWST. And that wasn't even a given considering this:

I challenge darkstar to a debate, page 29:
viewtopic.php?p=41349#p41349
viewtopic.php?p=41498#p41498
viewtopic.php?p=41533#p41533
viewtopic.php?p=41553#p41553

3. This can't turn into a mini-SDN, Mike, for the simple reason that we actually LET people make new arguments and leave them plenty of room to make their point if they can behave, and the moderation is encouraged to act transparently (but we need a clearer system!). The only moment it will be SDN is not because you permaban people, but because you do it on false premises and do it internally, without letting the defendant any recourse, and if the sanctions drop in the most disgusting way.
Above all, SDN and SBC working the same way, and knowing a lot about the second one regarding moderation, I know that here, at SFJN, it is not a crime to disagree about sanctions and finding them unfair (at least if you don't abuse it and if you've proved you were willing to improve): you wouldn't get another ban for that right off the bat. Oh, and there's the fact that on SBC, they didn't care much about the infraction points (our warnings here) at all.
See, I think we're a far way from turning into a mini-SDN.

You all should look back at this thread, its first pages. You'd suddenly remember how it was already way too obvious that we had a troll on our hands and yet nothing was being done. We went one nearly one full year on this insane convoy.

Now, thankfully, the staff seems to have learned their lesson.

However, I'm quite eager to know how you think you should handle JasonB. Notably, if you believe that his style is compatible with the following parts of the rules:
SWST was banned multiple times as per the board rules on that. Yes there is some discretion and both Praeo and I attempted to exercise that as you well know, but were overruled by JMS. You are getting overworked for something that did not need such excessive attention. To your credit you helped document the huge amount of SWST's honey-coated trollings and violations. That was a big help and for that I thank you as it would have been that much more difficult pushing several of the bans through at that time.

I also would point out that while Trinoya was given the honor of delivering the permaban, it was not without first my giving SWST 3 quick warnings upon his return from his last temporary ban, which in turn set things up nicely for Trinoya's excellent work.
-Mike

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by mojo » Sat May 19, 2012 9:58 am

Mike DiCenso wrote:No such thing. Give it a rest, Mojo. I would also point out that demanding a concession from someone is a violation of the rules JMS set forth, and that is precisely what you are doing here.
-Mike
i can't believe you were able to type that without being struck by lightning.

so seriously, this is how you're going to do this? you're going to wait me out until you can ban me, never answering any of my posts? don't you think that's a bit cowardly? WHAT IS THE PROBLEM, MIKE? would responding to my posts waste so much of your time that jasonb would take over the forum in your absence?

i will not 'give it a rest'. it's not against board policy to repeat a question until you get an answer, and in this case i've been repeating it for at least a year. if you want me to 'give it a rest', JUST ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ALREADY.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sat May 19, 2012 2:08 pm

Mike DiCenso wrote:I also would point out that while Trinoya was given the honor of delivering the permaban, it was not without first my giving SWST 3 quick warnings upon his return from his last temporary ban, which in turn set things up nicely for Trinoya's excellent work.
-Mike
Rules weren't changed much, were they? What made the huge difference so that Trinoya had to deliver the final ban and not you? Did you do him a favour or something?
I don't even know why and how Trinoya was chosen in fact, General Donner, in the poll, had the large majority of votes. Did JMS say anything about that, because lately he doesn't seem to care at all about his board...

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by sonofccn » Sat May 19, 2012 3:07 pm

Mr. Oragahn wrote:I'm not saying it was justified. I'm saying it's very understandable
Okay then. I guess I can understand where your coming from. I can understand Mojo's frustration at SWST and how it can make you want to do stupid things.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by sonofccn » Sat May 19, 2012 4:12 pm

@Mojo:

So for clarification are you conceeding your argument that Mike abused his power and unfairly banned you, that KSW was unfairly permaband, that Mike is turning this into some kind of internet police state, that his priorities are faulty and he goes after the likes of KSW instead of SWST ect just to solely argue Mike "lied" about being distracted by your antics?

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by Mike DiCenso » Sat May 19, 2012 5:23 pm

Mr. Oragahn wrote:
Mike DiCenso wrote:I also would point out that while Trinoya was given the honor of delivering the permaban, it was not without first my giving SWST 3 quick warnings upon his return from his last temporary ban, which in turn set things up nicely for Trinoya's excellent work.
-Mike
Rules weren't changed much, were they? What made the huge difference so that Trinoya had to deliver the final ban and not you? Did you do him a favour or something?
I don't even know why and how Trinoya was chosen in fact, General Donner, in the poll, had the large majority of votes. Did JMS say anything about that, because lately he doesn't seem to care at all about his board...
Simply speaking, as far as I understand what happened is that Trinoya is the only one who stepped up and asked for the job. As for the other, it just worked out nicely the way that it did. I was busy RL and Trinoya not so much.
-Mike

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by Mike DiCenso » Sat May 19, 2012 5:27 pm

mojo wrote:
Mike DiCenso wrote:No such thing. Give it a rest, Mojo. I would also point out that demanding a concession from someone is a violation of the rules JMS set forth, and that is precisely what you are doing here.
-Mike
i can't believe you were able to type that without being struck by lightning.

so seriously, this is how you're going to do this? you're going to wait me out until you can ban me, never answering any of my posts? don't you think that's a bit cowardly? WHAT IS THE PROBLEM, MIKE? would responding to my posts waste so much of your time that jasonb would take over the forum in your absence?

i will not 'give it a rest'. it's not against board policy to repeat a question until you get an answer, and in this case i've been repeating it for at least a year. if you want me to 'give it a rest', JUST ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ALREADY.
I have given you your answering, and I would point out that ignoring an answer is what got SWST in trouble. Maybe you didn't like the answer? Or maybe as Sonofccn puts it, you need to clarify your question.
-Mike

User avatar
Trinoya
Security Officer
Posts: 658
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:35 am

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by Trinoya » Sun May 20, 2012 1:54 am

To answer how I got the position: As Mike put it, I asked JMS for the position as I could see there were several incidents that could require more than one moderator. Since I can pretty much log in at least once a day no problem I can help keep the spam bots down, and more importantly I can provide moderation to topics where Mike is involved, or another moderator to discuss issues with.

As I learn the position I shall see where it all ends up, for right now I doubt I'm going to be jumping on the ban everyone wagon... but I'm also not going to shrug the forum rules, I didn't do it with SWST, and I was the biggest on giving him a chance.

That said: SWST is gone, it's time to move on imho.

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by mojo » Sun May 20, 2012 10:02 am

sonofccn wrote:@Mojo:

So for clarification are you conceeding your argument that Mike abused his power and unfairly banned you,


no. i don't think i really have to argue that anymore. even YOU admit that my ban was not kosher. but if you want to play that card, fine, one more time-
1. i created a joke thread in which i asked the question, who would fin in a fight, mike or light yagami with his death note.
2. i claimed that light yagami would not only win, instantaneously, but that he would also be capable of controlling mike's actions from the moment he wrote mike's name in the note until his inevitable death, which is a perfectly valid statement.
3. i suggested the possibility that light yagami, pissed off, would likely choose to utilize this ability to humiliate mike, and then further suggested that he might do this by forcing mike to act as if he were a furry and a virgin or something like that.
4. this debate goes on for two or three days, and actually becomes interesting.
5. mike finds the thread and flips the fuck out, totally missing the fact that i did not imply that mike WAS a furry or whatever, only that the death note is capable of forcing anyone to act in any way desired by it's owner, and that it would be perfectly in character for light yagami to amuse himself by forcing this on mike.
6. mike, apparently dissatisfied by the board's policies regarding warnings and bans, invokes emergency powers and bans me for six months although i sat at exactly one warning.
7. he proceeds to petition jms to permban me, and then when airlocke submits a list of questions and statements for me, he ignores them, his only response an admission that my lengthy ban was basically the result of a temper tantrum and that my only recourse was to appeal to jms myself.
8. a few days later, jms complains that he has already pointed out the fact that he no longer wished to moderate the site in any way, and had given control to mike. at this point, mike was fully aware that he possessed the power to permban at will.
9. strangely, mike apparently decides that my post was not worthy of permban after all
given the fact that he does not do so.
10. he does, however, leave me banned for months. questioned on this point, mike literally states himself that he had banned me because i was irritating him, and then states that he doesn't care what anyone thinks about this blatant disregard of board policy. you can go back and see for yourself. he actually says that he doesn't care, and then proves it over and over by refusing to even acknowledge the existence of my questions and arguments.
none of this is new material for you. i have proven that my ban was unjustified, at the very least in length, and mike doesn't even bother to respond, preferring to instead ignore me, lie, lie about lying, lie about having already answered me, and then return to ignoring me again. he does this because he KNOWS he can't effectively argue against something so blatantly obvious. you yourself know that invoking emergency powers in order to ban someone for pissing you off is a goddamn textbook example of abusing your power.
so no, i in no way concede anything of the sort.
sonofccn wrote:that KSW was unfairly permaband,
board policy requires very specific conditions for a permban, including official warnings and bans of increasing length. go back and look through this thread, and show me where ksw has been given four official warnings and is informed that his next infraction will result in permban. if you cannot do so, then ksw was unfairly permbanned according to board policy. you can argue the point all day long, but the policy is clear.
do not repeat the extremely dishonest claim that i previously supported such action. in the quote you provided which you gave as evidence that i did indeed support that sort of thing, you somehow managed to snip out the part where i am clearly pushing for moderator freedom in giving official warnings. i have never, never argued that the warning system should be circumvented.
sonofccn wrote:that Mike is turning this into some kind of internet police state,


although that's a hell of an exaggeration, the basic idea is sound. again, look through the posts of the past few months. you'll find requests for transparency long before my ban ended. oragahn specifically has made some good arguments. you'll find these requests ignored, as per usual mike dicenso style.
sonofccn wrote:that his priorities are faulty
mike has accepted the reins of sfj. he is the lead moderator and holds all admin powers. he is also a human being with a life outside the internet. so if mike knew he would often be gone for days at a time and that he somehow has trouble keeping up with the ten posts a day this forum produces, i would think finding new mods and tweaking the rules would be a pretty goddamn high priority. so why did it take a month to bring in trinoya when the board elected him in a poll?
sonofccn wrote:and he goes after the likes of KSW instead of SWST
how the fuck could i 'concede' an obvious fact? for christ's sake. mike permanned ksw and then totally failed to permban swst. trinoya had to do it, because mike simply refused to, for whatever reason. he even refused to deal with the aftermath, claiming it would be good experience for trinoya. there is no possible way to argue that mike does not 'go after the likes of ksw instead of swst'. give me a break.
sonofccn wrote:ect just to solely argue Mike "lied" about being distracted by your antics?
to sum up, i concede nothing. i offer as evidence strengthening my claims the fact that mike continues to refuse to address them. but i have come to the point of realizing i need to pick my battles, and the one that bothers me the most is the blatant 'lying'.

Post Reply