Unban Chris Again?

[Wes]

Chris_(Cora) (11/7/2005 19:16:44): Wes! I need to talk with you!

Chris_(Cora) (11/7/2005 19:26:01): I just checked the Site policy on the Forums and my post wasn't against any of those rules!

wes_of_stararmy (11/7/2005 22:31:25): Back

Chris_(Cora) (11/7/2005 22:33:53): May I be so bold as to ask why I was banned this time?
Chris_(Cora) (11/7/2005 22:34:42): Was it the "kiss up to Wes" comment in the Q&A?

wes_of_stararmy (11/7/2005 22:35:08): Your attitude made the RP look like shit in front of the newest players. It was that comment plus another one, yes.

Chris_(Cora) (11/7/2005 22:35:21): What was the other one?

wes_of_stararmy (11/7/2005 22:36:08): ", All are female, and all are dogmatically Emperor Usue's bitches."

wes_of_stararmy (11/7/2005 22:36:20): "ne such, whom is quite literally unto a god is the current Master Chief of the whole fucking Imperial Army"

Chris_(Cora) (11/7/2005 22:38:33): That could have been replaced with a simple edit. And the "kissing up" part was a blatant falsehood, I'm sure the new player realized that the second they saw it. Man, Wes. Like the two comments I made will completely cause the Star Army site to lose all it's new players. Hell, I bet those two were already set in making their characters. <_< What am I saying. The one who I said to "kiss up to" made a post in the 5th's board AFTER I said it.

Chris_(Cora) (11/7/2005 22:39:01): <_< You know my stance on Yui. I'm just glad you left her on Yamatai so other player character can win.

Chris_(Cora) (11/7/2005 22:39:48): Wes, these things were said quite after the fact on that thread. The person in question got all the info they needed in the first few posts.

Chris_(Cora) (11/7/2005 22:42:30): Besides, the forum rules weren't broken. I read the policy on the site.

wes_of_stararmy (11/7/2005 22:43:21): Yeah, but you presented the RP in such a way as to take what you disliked about the RP and vulgarly present it to someone still forming their impressions of the RP.

wes_of_stararmy (11/7/2005 22:44:37): You will not use the website in any manner that harasses another member or could interfere with any other party's use or enjoyment of the website. You will respect the privacy of others and not use the website for unwelcome, rude or abusive communications, including the creation obscene, offensive, tasteless, defamatory or hateful member names or content.

Chris_(Cora) (11/7/2005 22:44:59): Wes, it was quite apparent they had their impressions on the forum already formed, they just asked for clarification on a few things. As for the "Kiss up" part, that was so blatantly fake I'm surprised you believed it at all. Why would I willingly ask to be banned?

Chris_(Cora) (11/7/2005 22:45:20): Now you're just taking your own rules out of context.

wes_of_stararmy (11/7/2005 22:45:37): Because you constantly try to push the limits of my patience?

Chris_(Cora) (11/7/2005 22:45:52): What?!

Chris_(Cora) (11/7/2005 22:46:39): The last time I was banned, and it was because I was being a complete ass and fighting with Uso. Now, I'm banned because I voice my opinion on the current background set up, and make a joke?

wes_of_stararmy (11/7/2005 22:49:35): You weren't very tactful, man. ~,~

Chris_(Cora) (11/7/2005 22:50:23): It's hard to convey sarcasm through text without making it blatantly obvious.

wes_of_stararmy (11/7/2005 22:51:55): Didn't we just go through a big discussion about that in which I said sarcasm, because it is by nature intended to injure, would be met with administrative action?

wes_of_stararmy (11/7/2005 22:52:37): https://stararmy.com/forums/viewtopic.ph ... 8&start=20

Chris_(Cora) (11/7/2005 22:53:01): That's utter bullshit Wes. Why should sarcasm be an administrative action? They're just words. And I can't see the friggin web forum since you IP ban everyone you ban!

wes_of_stararmy (11/7/2005 22:53:44): The post says "By definition, ridicule and sarcasm are hurtful. This forum will no longer tolerate members to behave in a manner that will hurt one another."

wes_of_stararmy (11/7/2005 22:54:17): "In accordance with rule 2 of the main website policy, any communication that is knowingly hurtful to other role-players will be met with warnings and then with administrative action. Before, people had to be really direct and aggressive to get banned. Due to numerous complaints, however, I have to take this a step further. If you are going to be an asshole to your fellow role-players, you are not welcome here. We're supposed to be all friends, having fun; furthermore, I'm trying to provide a quality role-playing environment where people feel welcome. So, it's official: Don't be sarcastic or ridicule other players."

Chris_(Cora) (11/7/2005 22:54:25): Wes, you're trying to make people not act like people.

wes_of_stararmy (11/7/2005 22:54:41): Not all people are rude!

Chris_(Cora) (11/7/2005 22:55:45): People are rude! Even nice people can be rude at times Wes. Saying we can't be rude, is like telling us not to contradict someone else. That's being rude. Saying not to be rude is like telling people not to challenge someone else.

wes_of_stararmy (11/7/2005 22:56:33): Absolutely not. If you're going to challenge someone, rudeness isn't how you do it; you do it through reason.

wes_of_stararmy (11/7/2005 22:58:02): Also, I wouldn't want to go against the other two admins on this one by unbanning you.

Chris_(Cora) (11/7/2005 23:01:53): The other two admins? Who are they?

Chris_(Cora) (11/7/2005 23:02:45): You, Yangfan and Rune?

wes_of_stararmy (11/7/2005 23:03:06): Yeah.

wes_of_stararmy (11/7/2005 23:03:23): adrin_eitan: so what happened with Chris? Wes: I put one of the two posts I banned him for in the staff forum. You read it? adrin_eitan: Not yet, sorry ive been busy studying..ill check it out Wes: Alright. adrin_eitan: *makes toilet flushing noise* I see the ban was well deserved

Chris_(Cora) (11/7/2005 23:04:30): ... He said that, when he told me...

Chris_(Cora) (11/7/2005 23:14:57): Wes, I'm sure Tyler's told you the person in question I talked to knew it was a joke. And the other post is an opinion. I see no real reason why I was banned on this? Are personal opinions also against the ToS?

wes_of_stararmy (11/7/2005 23:20:07): No, but sabotaging new dudes' joining is :/

Chris_(Cora) (11/7/2005 23:20:24): I thin you posted to the wrong person Wes.

Chris_(Cora) (11/7/2005 23:20:35): Oh, wait. <_<

Chris_(Cora) (11/7/2005 23:21:14): I wasn't sabotaging anything. I posted an opinion in a three week old thread and I made a witty post which the topic creator KNEW, by their reply, was a joke.

Chris_(Cora) (11/7/2005 23:26:51): You also knew that that Panda person wasn't even a registered poster right? The fact he hadn't even done that in the three weeks his topis has been open means he isn't joining in the first place.

wes_of_stararmy (11/7/2005 23:28:42): :/

Chris_(Cora) (11/7/2005 23:28:56): Emotes are not a proper reply Wes,

wes_of_stararmy (11/7/2005 23:30:34): Yeah, I knew that, but he wasn't the only person reading that thread either y'know.

Chris_(Cora) (11/7/2005 23:31:18): ... Wes, it's an old thread. Besides, if one looked, they would find the information he asked for on the site itself.

Chris_(Cora) (11/7/2005 23:31:55): Besides, if you disliked it that much, why didn't you just delete it?

wes_of_stararmy (11/7/2005 23:34:57): I knew others would want to see the evidence
Chris_(Cora) (11/7/2005 23:35:27): What evidence? That I have an opinion?

wes_of_stararmy (11/7/2005 23:36:31): No, that you don't know how to present it without getting all emotional and malicious.

Chris_(Cora) (11/7/2005 23:37:20): So I have a problem with stating what I dislike, without shuger coating it.. Big deal.

wes_of_stararmy (11/7/2005 23:39:25): I don't expect you to sugar coat anything, but I don't expect you to leave a fat turd on it either.

Chris_(Cora) (11/7/2005 23:41:52): Wes, you've known how I post since I joined. You've seen how blunt I am. And you know my opinion of several matters of this RP's background. But, however blunt I am, I am not directly hostile. (Well, I'm not anymore.)

Chris_(Cora) (11/7/2005 23:42:33): I may have been alittle scathing in my post, but in noway was I being directly anti-Wes, or anti-Star army.

wes_of_stararmy (11/7/2005 23:42:45): Can I post this conversation on the forums? I'll put up the standard poll...

Chris_(Cora) (11/7/2005 23:42:49): I just say what I think. It's a problem I've had all my life.

 

[Karma Mechanic]

I vote for 2006, its always good to give a person a second chance, but it is the second time, so a slap on the rist is appropriate.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Ryszard]

2006, I read that other post but I also know 1 person that isn't a mod or admin doesn't FULLY represent a forum <_<;; however didn't much care for his delivery.

 

[Tyler]

While I agree Chris' delivery may have been tactless and I can see how it'd be offensive. But I keep my firm stance that he should be allowed back in, the posts in question and "ruining new players opinions" issue was probably taken as a joke by the other party, I read both posts and that is my impression. It's probably already been smoothed over with the dubbed "newbie". I post sarcasm all the time and I'm not banned, (then again it may be because I make it clear I am joking).

I may be biased because Chris is my friend and I don't abandon my friends in need. But I vouch for him being a good guy with an opinion. If he has a need to vent he can come to me to do so just like anyone else can. If he agrees to the provision he talk to someone in IM before posting it on the boards, I saw allow him back immediately. This seems fair to me

 

[Jadg Wolf]

I think we've got new people who don't understand Chris' background voting. Whatever. I'm voting perma-ban, because he's been allowed back before, and he started looking like the new Zack when he came back. However, I did agree with his post about Star Army.

 

[Rei]

I think we've got new people who don't understand Chris' background voting. Whatever. I'm voting perma-ban, because he's been allowed back before, and he started looking like the new Zack when he came back.

Quoted for truth. While I can sympathize with his situation, this is repeated poor behaviour.

 

[Doshii Jun]

*shrugs* At the risk of having my own ass in the slinger (and I was just allowed to come back from an extended absence, too) I make the argument that this seems like drama, and that we just let the poor bastard back in. Chris seems rough around the edges, and doesn't take well to noobs. He's also an old player around here, or he seems to be.

What's the purpose in banning him, other than to scare folks into not badmouthing and so on? I understand this objective is necessary . . . but is banning how you get it across? *shrugs* Questions for the admin of a board, I guess.

Nonetheless, I put my vote to bringing him back immediately.

 

[Jadg Wolf]

What's this extended absence thing you're talking about? Did you think you'd be banned for not being around, or am I misunderstanding?

Chris seems rough around the edges, and doesn't take well to new role-players. He's also an old player around here, or he seems to be.

Not that old. Older than the newest generation (the guys that have started coming here within the past few weeks at a pretty quick rate, I mean) but newer than the actual old people. I was sort of irked by that post (the one I agreed with) because I thought he was a bit too new to start complaining about the place. I don't know, I think people have considered me a bit of an elitist before (I guess I like to say that I've been here since the start) so maybe it's just me.

As for the reason, I'd say it's because he's not very civil. People like me and Zack have been banned before for similar offenses, but several of those were misunderstandings, and I don't really think that he was joking when he posted. If he ends up coming back, I'm not going to complain about it (he can be a cool guy sometimes) but I'm simply trying to explain my vote.

 

[Ryszard]

Being the "new person" that was hinted at, I had voted for let him stew until next year. On the basis that, while I don't know him, I DO know the feeling of being undermined when one of my players tells another, "Just suck up to the GM, you'll get good gear out of it."

It gives the impression that you're easy to push over and not really anything more than a figure head...It's rather insulting. But that's just from my view point.

 

[Doshii Jun]

What's this extended absence thing you're talking about? Did you think you'd be banned for not being around, or am I misunderstanding?

Well, I figured I might be kicked off the Sakura, even though I kept in touch. It wouldn't be malicious or because I sucked, but because I, well, wasn't around.

As for the reason, I'd say it's because he's not very civil. People like me and Zack have been banned before for similar offenses, but several of those were misunderstandings, and I don't really think that he was joking when he posted. If he ends up coming back, I'm not going to complain about it (he can be a cool guy sometimes) but I'm simply trying to explain my vote.

Sorry if it sounded like I was dogging on your explanation there; didn't mean for that. It seems as if banning happens, and that's how it is.

There is something to be said for civility. But that's a concept that changes from person to person, so I don't know how you can really implement it. It's been codified enough as it is.

 

[Tom]

I vote yes because, well, as blunt as it was, I still didn't see a personal attack per se.

Scathing criticism of a system shouldn't be grounds for a ban. That's the whole journalisticy side of me talking.

 

[Rob]

Not that old. Older than the newest generation (the guys that have started coming here within the past few weeks at a pretty quick rate, I mean) but newer than the actual old people. I was sort of irked by that post (the one I agreed with) because I thought he was a bit too new to start complaining about the place. I don't know, I think people have considered me a bit of an elitist before (I guess I like to say that I've been here since the start) so maybe it's just me.

I'm the oldest of the new, if you will, and I don't consider myself in a position to criticise the site or any of the members therein, especially not in the manner chris took. I do not, however, believe in permenance... so I'm going for 2k6.

 

[Tom]

I'm a day older than you and I criticize the system! A little more tactfully I guess, but hey. Don't ever be afraid to raise an opinion.

 

[Zakalwe]

Uhm ... Rob joined considerably earlier than you did.

He joined considerably earlier that I did.

And I don't know if I'm in a position to criticise the site, I just don't.

However if I did I would likely talk to him in private, not to have my opinion blasted over the public forums.

 

[Yangfan]

For the record, I think Chris deserves another chance... after he gets some time off to cool off.

What about Harlequin?

 

[Andrew]

I have talked to Chris quite a bit since he was banned. This is my opinion on this situation. I'll be the first to admit I am not his biggest fan. But I dont think this is the place for a popularity contest.

1. I think he understands now that the opinion he gave was inappropriate for dealing with a newcomer

2. I think that he has had enough time to think about it and come back

3. Lastly, he is an important part of the 21st Armor Wing in the 5th XF, keeping him out is more a punishment to them than to him because it is interfering with their mission.

So I would like to propose that he brought back, as long as he agrees to not deal with newcommers in that manner again. Have it known that another violation would oust him completely.

I think however a rank reduction would be warranted considering he was involved in an action which could of hurt our recruiting and retension.

 

[Jadg Wolf]

If you're talking about that OOC ranking system, I think I've made my opinion clear on that (if you don't know, you can find it). If you're talking about IC, that'd be stupid. OOC and IC should stay separate.

 

[DocTomoe]

3. Lastly, he is an important part of the 21st Armor Wing in the 5th XF, keeping him out is more a punishment to them than to him because it is interfering with their mission.]

Chris is also going to be importaint in the Lorath plot line, thus it would be VERY troublesome to myself and Tiff to have to deal with missing Chris all together or untill 2006.

 

[Rei]

I don't see how your choice of players in a plot should absolve him from punishment. He made his decisions, and I'm sorry if it sounds insensitive to your plot, but you'll just have to find someone else in that case. Mostly because if the people voting complete ban would stack everything into 2006 if they were forced to, I'm certain~

 

[Zakalwe]

Well if we're going to be fair about this.

In the eventuality that complete ban gets the most votes: It most outnumber the combined votes of both other cattegories, because the disunity of two lesser groups can not be held against it.

In the eventuality than an instant return wins, it must outnumber the other two groups, so that the disunity, or the majority disproving, will still have there say.

In either of these cases, if it does not get a clear majority over bother other cattegories (put together), you should resort to the middle one, or a lesser punishment (not untill next month or something).

That's a fair system. Whether I'm for or against using it I won't say.