Ban-a-thon

[Ironhawk]

Wow. I go away for a few weeks and some of the most knowledgable players in the game have been mass banned? Makes me question why I came back. Is there a boilerplate comment about the incident?

[13lackGu4rd]

might wanna check out these threads: http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=45509 ; http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=45498

it all started with Sombre getting perma banned for "disregarding the forum rules" which later turned into "he was treated with silk gloves but enough is enough" and than the majority of the community jumped into the thick of things in Sombre's defense, things got quite rough and the mods decided to not let it slide and ban the main "troublemakers" as they(not me) called them, so Maerlande, Frozen Lama and Trumanator were also perma banned. don't think anybody else was, but I do know that Burnsaber also left these forums due to this whole incident, so now the modding forums is missing its 2 main contributors(Sombre and Burnsaber).

for more information hop into our IRC channel, there's still an ongoing discussion about this even now, the ripples of it just won't die...

[Gandalf Parker]

Mass Ban? I thought it was 2

[rdonj]

There were 4.

[Zeldor]

Ironhawk:

But Shrapnel people were much better at insulting :)

Anyway, new forums are coming, I wonder how many people will stay here... I guess both sides will be happy. We, that we don't have to deal with Shrapnel and Shrapnel that does not have to bother about people that already bought the game.

[Gandalf Parker]

ok I found out (asked in IRC)

[Verjigorm]

At the risk of being unpopular, I have always found that forum trolls are always of detriment to the community regardless of whatever contributions they make. They drive away new people and make others want to leave or not participate.

Any mods those guys made are contributions prior. They can still play--they just can't be nasty on the forums which is how it was explained.

If they want to get hot over spitting in the face of the mods after being offered a chance to return, that's fine. I'm sure there are other people who will be more than willing to take up the slack that was left from their departure, and perhaps with weeds pulled the community as a whole will be better off.

I don't have anything against any of them personally, nor do I know the event that caused the bans in the first place and I don't care. I have been on many forums and without qualification, trolls are always a negative force regardless of how much useful information may be stored within them. Anything within them can be found elsewhere.

I spent probably 30 minutes the other day responding to what I thought was a request for strategy assistance only to find that it was some dude trolling and trying to start fights by insulting anyone who tried to help in earnest for whatever purpose. That thread has been deleted. Forums are Dictatorships not Democracies. Rules are generalities not absolutes. Mods have discretionary power to do what they decide is best for the community in general.

[Gandalf Parker]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaDYJMy9Ddk

[Zapmeister]

How does banning even work? If it's just based on the name, then its a trivial matter to re-register under a different one.

If its based on IP, most people don't have a static one. And if whole ranges of IPs are blocked, you're potentially banning innocents that use the same ISP.

That's why I'm convinced that Norfleet is still lurking around here somewhere ...

[Gandalf Parker]

How does any punishment work for anything? Internet or real world. Same comments, same answers.

And I agree about Norfleet.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showpost.php?p=669631&postcount=35

[rdonj]

At the risk of being unpopular, I have always found that forum trolls are always of detriment to the community regardless of whatever contributions they make. They drive away new people and make others want to leave or not participate.

Any mods those guys made are contributions prior. They can still play--they just can't be nasty on the forums which is how it was explained.

If they want to get hot over spitting in the face of the mods after being offered a chance to return, that's fine. I'm sure there are other people who will be more than willing to take up the slack that was left from their departure, and perhaps with weeds pulled the community as a whole will be better off.

I don't have anything against any of them personally, nor do I know the event that caused the bans in the first place and I don't care. I have been on many forums and without qualification, trolls are always a negative force regardless of how much useful information may be stored within them. Anything within them can be found elsewhere.

I spent probably 30 minutes the other day responding to what I thought was a request for strategy assistance only to find that it was some dude trolling and trying to start fights by insulting anyone who tried to help in earnest for whatever purpose. That thread has been deleted. Forums are Dictatorships not Democracies. Rules are generalities not absolutes. Mods have discretionary power to do what they decide is best for the community in general.

Sombre - made mods, you know exactly why he was banned, and if you don't it's very easy to figure it out why since it is posted both here and in more complete detail on the forum people are migrating to. Sombre never spit in the face of the mods for offering to return him... he was never offered this so far as I'm aware. If you want to accuse him of doing something, at least make sure it's something he actually did.

Maerlande - did not make mods, had a grudge against septimius and said some things about him in the past, definitely a troll, but the vast majority of this was of a subtle and/or harmless type. With regards to the deleted thread in question, I once again refute accusations of baiting people into arguments. I saw that thread, I posted in it, and you and peter ebesson were being just as abusive of him there as sombre ever has been, I am not kidding at all when I say this. The two of you got the already hostile IRC crowd riled up, and that's what got you hit. Sorry, but it was your own fault. *shrug*

Frozen Lama and Trumanator - Neither modders or trolls. Perfectly helpful and decent members of the community, until they were set off by the banning. They got banned because they wanted to be banned, no more, no less. Don't go painting everyone with the same brush, whether out of malice, ignorance, or laziness.

There are a good number of IRC folk with similar opinions who just did not go so far as to get themselves banned, and IRC people constitute probably at least 70% of people who regularly post advice to people. You may be an experienced enough player not to care about these people leaving the forums, but there are a lot of people who SHOULD care. Anyway I have nothing else to add to this that wasn't said yesterday.

[chrispedersen]

[QUOTE=Zeldor;744103]Ironhawk:

I'm deleting my post as it probably doesn't contribute anything helpful to the debate.

[rdonj]

How does banning even work? If it's just based on the name, then its a trivial matter to re-register under a different one.

If its based on IP, most people don't have a static one. And if whole ranges of IPs are blocked, you're potentially banning innocents that use the same ISP.

That's why I'm convinced that Norfleet is still lurking around here somewhere ...

Shrapnel uses an IP block. Apparently it is not very hard to get around the block at all, should one so choose. No one banned has registered a new name so far as I'm aware, though, so I wouldn't go looking for any of them to be making any new posts.

[Zapmeister]

How does any punishment work for anything? Internet or real world. Same comments, same answers.

Eh? I was asking a technical question: How does whatever-they-do actually prevent banned people from using the forum?

rdonj said they use an IP block, but if that means just blocking a single IP, thats never going to be effective in our DHCP world.

There's no analogy to this problem in the real world (that I can think of).

[Verjigorm]

...
Maerlande - did not make mods, had a grudge against septimius and said some things about him in the past, definitely a troll, but the vast majority of this was of a subtle and/or harmless type. With regards to the deleted thread in question, I once again refute accusations of baiting people into arguments. I saw that thread, I posted in it, and you and peter ebesson were being just as abusive of him there as sombre ever has been, I am not kidding at all when I say this. The two of you got the already hostile IRC crowd riled up, and that's what got you hit. Sorry, but it was your own fault. *shrug*


I did not make any rude comments. I didn't say anything insulting except to reference the fact that the suggested strategy was not a good one. In the beginning, I suggested that rather cordially, but when he began trolling via insult, I responded more bluntly. Then the troll-posters proceeded to try to make fun of me for not understanding their inside info--I don't hang on IRC, so I have no idea what they're talking about. I pop on to look for strategy info, play with mods, and help out if people need something.

I don't come here for drama. If people want to talk about me on some IRC channel that's fine. People who make decisions about my character without reason are probably not going to like me anyway. That doesn't make me a bad person just to not be liked by some random Internet people. I'm sure there are plenty of fine people to talk to who have better manners.

As for the "Sombre wasn't offered a chance" defense, I believe, I can refer you to Annette's posting wherein she offered to let him stay provided he agreed not to continue his negative behavior and he refused to do so. I assume he was trying to leverage the fact that he's good at making mods to give him free reign to do as he pleased on the boards which is an invalid argument.

That being said, I'm not going to continue responding to this nonsense hereafter. I was not talking about the other two mentioned, only Sombre and Maerlund, though Tru was trolling in the aforesaid thread as well.

Thank you,

V

...and I'm not a mean person, but I do reserve the right to defend myself when attacked. Although, I do not do so through childish name calling and mockery, but through valid and hopefully profitable debate.

[chrispedersen]

Rdonj...

You are right - neither you nor I know whether sombre was offered a chance to return; whether he chose to ignore it or not.
So we really have nothing to contribute to the conversation.

As for peter, Ver, etc. they were mocked far before they responded. Remember the

no

no

no

yes, you don't get it post? Even well past that post they were trying to respond helpfully. It may be your opinion that this is perfectly acceptable behavior. It isn't mine.

[rdonj]

Chrisp - it is my opinion that verjigorm and PE's behavior was much more unacceptable in that thread than maerlande's ever was. Other people may have descended to the same level.

[Rookierookie]

Maerlande - did not make mods, had a grudge against septimius and said some things about him in the past, definitely a troll, but the vast majority of this was of a subtle and/or harmless type. With regards to the deleted thread in question, I once again refute accusations of baiting people into arguments. I saw that thread, I posted in it, and you and peter ebesson were being just as abusive of him there as sombre ever has been, I am not kidding at all when I say this. The two of you got the already hostile IRC crowd riled up, and that's what got you hit. Sorry, but it was your own fault. *shrug*
As an observer to the thread, I think the Sombre-supporting crowd was the primary instigator of abuse in that thread. Verjigorm and P.E. were being perfectly helpful until certain members incessantly taunted them. I think there are some double-standards being applied here, where some people are allowed to be blunt or harsh or sarcastic or abusive, while others aren't, and the latter group isn't even allowed to respond with the same tone. Either that, or there has been some kind of memory lapse.

The final post made by Annette in the latest thread implied that Sombre was not completely candid. Of course there are several people who, having already labelled her as a liar, would obviously consider that a lie to and would not bother to listen; this rather adds to the list of lies as far as they are concerned.

For me, I don't particularly care. However, given the conflict with their stories, I have no reason to believe either side unconditionally, though it doesn't help Shrapnel that they have no provision for open information, such as an openly viewable "administrative board" that some forums have. My stance is always that if I feel that I don't want to be in this forum anymore, I don't have to. And I don't have to spew a bunch of profanities or spam in order to get banned.

I will add that I never actually thought that Sombre was very obnoxious as far as what I saw on the forums. Impatient and occasionally not always thinking enough before posting, but never truly obnoxious. I don't know what goes on elsewhere. The same cannot be said for some members of the group who came to his defence after the banning, who preferred to resort to the least effective method of argument possible, and more importantly were indiscriminate in their attacks. I think they did a lot of the things they accused Shrapnel of, and sometimes reminded me of the Chinese Red Guard insofar that anybody who did not support them unconditionally were demonized too. Sometimes I wonder if the people who rebel against authority do it for self-righteousness rather than righteousness.

As for IP blocks, they mean exactly nothing. I know. Don't look at me like that, I was twelve at that time!

[Verjigorm]

Chrisp - it is my opinion that verjigorm and PE's behavior was much more unacceptable in that thread than maerlande's ever was. Other people may have descended to the same level.

I truly wish that thread had not been deleted... Now it can be used to justify any opinion. With it gone, people can say that I said anything. Remember, that just because you wanted to feel a certain way about what I posted doesn't mean that I felt that way when I wrote it. Emotional context does not exist in text, and I always tell people not to mix their own feelings into things other people say online. Not that you care.

If you know I started it, why don't you repost quotes from the thread that you saved as evidence?

Bah... I shouldn't be typing or responding. You're just trying to suck me into another troll thread.

[Tim Brooks]

Eh? I was asking a technical question: How does whatever-they-do actually prevent banned people from using the forum?

rdonj said they use an IP block, but if that means just blocking a single IP, thats never going to be effective in our DHCP world.


Hi Zapmeister:

Actually our bans work on a couple of levels. Still there are always ways around any ban. The biggest detriment to the banned individual is that they can no longer use their username on the forums.

We haven't had to ban that many individuals, and most just don't come back, but every once in a while we have those trying to come back on with a new identity. We usually catch them in registration or not long after. Most people find it hard to change their ways and you can usually tell when someone has returned. And if they do return, change their ways, follow the rules, and play nice, well usually that is all we wanted from them from the beginning...

Hope that helps.

[Gandalf Parker]

How does any punishment work for anything? Internet or real world. Same comments, same answers.

Eh? I was asking a technical question: How does whatever-they-do actually prevent banned people from using the forum?

rdonj said they use an IP block, but if that means just blocking a single IP, thats never going to be effective in our DHCP world.

There's no analogy to this problem in the real world (that I can think of).
[opinionated rant on]
The answer is that it doesnt. Just like nothing ever stops anything. Locks dont stop crime, death sentence doesnt stop killings, copy protection doesnt stop piracy, tickets dont stop speeding.

Ive been involved in enforcement at various levels in both real and virtual worlds for a couple of decades and I hear it so often. My usual response is "Its not my job to stop anything. If it was then things would be done quite differently. Its my job to make it as difficult as possible for as many as possible for as long as possible hoping they get the hint". The deeper purpose is to usually to avoid open blatant in-your-face violations.

In the case of IP bans, no they dont stop reconnection. A person can probably make it back in, under a new name, and act in a way that no one figures out its him/her. But if they can pull that off then isnt the purpose served anyway?
[/end of rant]

The above statements are not meant to any way reflect the opinions of the management, the military, my employer, nor any other organization I have ever been associated with.

[rdonj]

Chrisp - it is my opinion that verjigorm and PE's behavior was much more unacceptable in that thread than maerlande's ever was. Other people may have descended to the same level.

I truly wish that thread had not been deleted... Now it can be used to justify any opinion. With it gone, people can say that I said anything. Remember, that just because you wanted to feel a certain way about what I posted doesn't mean that I felt that way when I wrote it. Emotional context does not exist in text, and I always tell people not to mix their own feelings into things other people say online. Not that you care.

If you know I started it, why don't you repost quotes from the thread that you saved as evidence?

Bah... I shouldn't be typing or responding. You're just trying to suck me into another troll thread.

Maerlande was only able to save the last 2 pages of the thread, which don't really interest me. Also he has been too lazy to put them up yet, so I'm afraid I can't :(

Anyway I actually have no intention of turning this into another troll thread. I just wanted to post in response to what I felt were unfair and untrue claims about another poster. Anyway I don't really feel like there's anything else I need to respond to here right now. I've said my peace.

[militarist]

The interesting question is - if admins would do the same if they could return to the past, when they know that they provoked half of active players to provoke them. And then they decided that they should kick of those trouble makers, just to save face. Some of banned had really started trolling and provocations, but it was just a reaction on what admins did.
So, I think nobody is happy. Those banned have to spend affords building new forum, admins will have less messages and hits on a forum, which will not make their life happier, at least those who really care about doms 3 forum. I'm sure some admins work on different shrapnel game forums and just don't care about dom3 community and more concerned about rules that could fit all games forums. Gamers were acting too emotionally, but admins as well, even if they tell now that it was a result of just logical thinking. We all are people and always have emotions, that's crazy to deny it.

[Gandalf Parker]

I think your numbers are abit skewed, and yes they probably would.
Its not like this hasnt happened before.

[Tim Brooks]

I truly wish that thread had not been deleted... Now it can be used to justify any opinion. With it gone, people can say that I said anything.

Hi Verjigorm:

What was the thread title? We never delete anything on purpose. The thread still exists. It was just moved to a private area.

Regards,

[rdonj]

Mr Brooks - it was the thread about communions. I can't remember the exact name. But started by maerlande.

[Graeme Dice]

That's why I'm convinced that Norfleet is still lurking around here somewhere ...

He wasn't even ever banned actually as far as I know.

[Foodstamp]

I don't think Maer, Frozen Lama and Trumanator were banned for repeated behavior. I think they were banned because they called moderators liars, told them to shove things in exit holes, compared them to Nazis etcetera. I am sure it earned them e-high-fives and they could care less.

Ultimately, they didn't like the forum rules/evil community/ evil mods or whatever and decided to go out with a text bang that would bring them some street cred or whatever e-thug merit badge they earned on the new forum.

[Verjigorm]

I truly wish that thread had not been deleted... Now it can be used to justify any opinion. With it gone, people can say that I said anything.

Hi Verjigorm:

What was the thread title? We never delete anything on purpose. The thread still exists. It was just moved to a private area.

Regards,

It was called communion something... It was a thread that looked like requests for strategy assistance.

Restoration of the thread, even if it was locked, would be appreciated as it would at least allow people to make their own judgments rather than relying on hearsay.

[Lingchih]

I think it was called Mastering Communions. Not 100% positive.

[Tim Brooks]

I truly wish that thread had not been deleted... Now it can be used to justify any opinion. With it gone, people can say that I said anything.

Hi Verjigorm:

What was the thread title? We never delete anything on purpose. The thread still exists. It was just moved to a private area.

Regards,

It was called communion something... It was a thread that looked like requests for strategy assistance.

Restoration of the thread, even if it was locked, would be appreciated as it would at least allow people to make their own judgments rather than relying on hearsay.

Fair enough Verjigorm. I will have it moved back but it will be locked, as it was just a form of spam. The thread title is "Managing Communions - the sombre challenge". The thread is here (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=45501).

Best regards,

[Annette]

Squirrelloid and pyg, you are both trying your best to push our buttons. If you'd like to continue to enjoy use of our boards, it's time to cease the games.

Annette

[Raiel]

I fail to see how Squirrelloid's response was in any way deserving of such a warning, as it came across as a simple recounting of events... but this is still progress. A public offense and a public reprimand. Now no one will wonder how long Squirrel has been a "continueing problem".

[Foodstamp]

Since a lot of ink has been spilled over what happened, my impression on the communion thread:

blah blah blah

It was mentioned in the thread that English was not the native language of some of the people that got angry over the thread. Sarcasm often doesn't translate well through written text, and if they truly did not speak English as a first language, can you imagine how hard it would be to "get" the joke, especially since not everyone spends as much time on the forum as some of us.

Are you suggesting that the people who got upset in that thread be punished for not getting the joke?

[Raiel]

On more thing while we're on the subject and then I'm done with it...

It may be obvious to many that I am on Sombre's side. But here's why:

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?p=739462&highlight=living+hell#post739462

A moderator on this forum threatened to make Sombre's life a living hell.

This is so out of line that I cannot even begin to express my disgust. When I read this I was furious and intent on contacting the admins about this. However, I waited 'till I had a chance to get Sombre's take on it... he wasn't happy, but he was nowhere near as incensed as I. So, I didn't pursue it any further... but if your curious where Sombre's "lack of respect for the mods" originated, I suspect you need look no further than the above referenced post.

[pyg]

What are you all talking about, neither Squirrelloid nor myself have posted anything in this thread.

[Squirrelloid]

Squirrelloid and pyg, you are both trying your best to push our buttons. If you'd like to continue to enjoy use of our boards, it's time to cease the games.

Annette

Annette,

There was a question as to what happened in the thread. The thread is now restored and thus I have endeavored to answer the questions with citations. I fail to see how my post is any more out of line than previous discussion on said thread, especially as it involves actual evidence rather than hearsay. Further, I fail to see how contributing to a substantial discussion is a game.

I have been generally reasonable and articulated my position, my questions, and my objections logically with respect to recent events when the situation warranted.

I will confess to participating in some punning and humor in the referenced thread. If this was against the ToS I will gladly cease with the punning.

If you would care to be more specific about how my conduct has been objectionable, then perhaps I will be able to satisfy you.

Sincerely,
Squirrelloid

P.S. Since my post is deleted, would you kindly delete all other posts in this thread discussing what occurred in the referenced thread? I can't imagine they can possibly be appropriate if mine wasn't.

[Squirrelloid]

Since a lot of ink has been spilled over what happened, my impression on the communion thread:

blah blah blah

It was mentioned in the thread that English was not the native language of some of the people that got angry over the thread. Sarcasm often doesn't translate well through written text, and if they truly did not speak English as a first language, can you imagine how hard it would be to "get" the joke, especially since not everyone spends as much time on the forum as some of us.

Are you suggesting that the people who got upset in that thread be punished for not getting the joke?

I did put a big disclaimer on how much I thought Verjigorm was responsible.

Peter was directly and specifically attacking and baiting Maerlande. Even if english is somehow not his first language, that is no defense of his conduct. And if you actually read my post you'd know that. (Edit: Not that you can read it anymore apparently, although the original thread speaks for itself).

Edit Edit: I also never suggested anyone get punished.

[Rookierookie]

That's kind of like trying to pickpocket someone, and then complaining when he beats you up.

[Lingchih]

Nice to see the Communions thread restored. It was a hackfest, but it deserved to be seen.

[Foodstamp]

On more thing while we're on the subject and then I'm done with it...

It may be obvious to many that I am on Sombre's side. But here's why:

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?p=739462&highlight=living+hell#post739462

A moderator on this forum threatened to make Sombre's life a living hell.

This is so out of line that I cannot even begin to express my disgust. When I read this I was furious and intent on contacting the admins about this. However, I waited 'till I had a chance to get Sombre's take on it... he wasn't happy, but he was nowhere near as incensed as I. So, I didn't pursue it any further... but if your curious where Sombre's "lack of respect for the mods" originated, I suspect you need look no further than the above referenced post.

Dude, when people follow your link, they are going to see the comment in the original context it was presented in, which will actually make Sombre look bad. You would have been better served to not post a link to the thread and just say something random like "A mod threatened Sombre".

FFS Sombre needs new lackies, you guys are terrible at spin.

[Lingchih]

Of course, Dom Nerds are not great at spin.

[Tim Brooks]

Squirrelloid and pyg, you are both trying your best to push our buttons. If you'd like to continue to enjoy use of our boards, it's time to cease the games.

Annette

Annette,

There was a question as to what happened in the thread. The thread is now restored and thus I have endeavored to answer the questions with citations.

Squirrelloid:

Why do you think the members of this forum need your play by play? You weren't in on the discussion that brought about me reinstating the thread, and just pop in to make sure you could point fingers at who you thought was responsible? I think the forum members are quite able to draw their own conclusions. So in my book your post was not only unnecessary but was an attempt to create discord. We have had enough discord around here, so please cool it.

Regards,

[Raiel]

I wasn't trying to spin. Sombre was out of line... barely.

PLEASE tell me in what circumstances you would find it acceptable to be told by ANYONE that they were going to make your life a living hell.

Spin that.

Edit: I should have typed "ANYONE in a position of authority" just in case you were prepared to reply that your friends say it all the time.

[Lingchih]

Just lock this one Tim. before it gets out of hand.

[Raiel]

Squirrelloid and pyg, you are both trying your best to push our buttons. If you'd like to continue to enjoy use of our boards, it's time to cease the games.

Annette

Annette,

There was a question as to what happened in the thread. The thread is now restored and thus I have endeavored to answer the questions with citations.

Squirrelloid:

Why do you think the members of this forum need your play by play? You weren't in on the discussion that brought about me reinstating the thread, and just pop in to make sure you could point fingers at who you thought was responsible? I think the forum members are quite able to draw there own conclusions. So in my book your post was not only unnecessary but was an attempt to create discord. We have had enough discord around here, so please cool it.

Regards,

That is spin. But it's salvagable... Having deleted Squirrelloid's post of what actually occured in the thread, I respectfully request that you delete the other posts in this thread that recount imaginary events in the thread.

Or maybe you deleted his post because it recounted exactly what happened and that didn't reflect well on Shrapnel or the people aligned with Shrapnel in this dialouge.

[Squirrelloid]

Squirrelloid and pyg, you are both trying your best to push our buttons. If you'd like to continue to enjoy use of our boards, it's time to cease the games.

Annette

Annette,

There was a question as to what happened in the thread. The thread is now restored and thus I have endeavored to answer the questions with citations.

Squirrelloid:

Why do you think the members of this forum need your play by play? You weren't in on the discussion that brought about me reinstating the thread, and just pop in to make sure you could point fingers at who you thought was responsible? I think the forum members are quite able to draw their own conclusions. So in my book your post was not only unnecessary but was an attempt to create discord. We have had enough discord around here, so please cool it.

Regards,

I can respect that it may have caused discord. However, since the other discussion of the same thread also can't help but do the same thing, shouldn't those posts also be deleted? Or, following your reasoning, should VFB have been allowed to post what I did verbatim simply because he was indicted in the earlier discussion?

As to why I felt my post was useful, previous discussion in this thread involved a lot of scapegoating that was contrary to the facts. All I did was highlight the relevant facts. I certainly hope its not acceptable to make posts scapegoating people who are no longer even on these boards to defend themselves, especially since the reason the thread was re-instated was that so evidence could be accessed to ascertain the truth.

For the promotion of harmony, this will be my last post on the subject (and in this thread). But I certainly hope you follow through on the logic of your reasoning and remove all the posts which attempt to assign blame for the events of that thread.

Sincerely,
Squirrelloid

[Tim Brooks]

Annette,

There was a question as to what happened in the thread. The thread is now restored and thus I have endeavored to answer the questions with citations.

Squirrelloid:

Why do you think the members of this forum need your play by play? You weren't in on the discussion that brought about me reinstating the thread, and just pop in to make sure you could point fingers at who you thought was responsible? I think the forum members are quite able to draw their own conclusions. So in my book your post was not only unnecessary but was an attempt to create discord. We have had enough discord around here, so please cool it.

Regards,

But I certainly hope you follow through on the logic of your reasoning and remove all the posts which attempt to assign blame for the events of that thread.




That is why I reinstated the thread. So that people could draw there own conclusions from the facts.

[Tim Brooks]

Annette,

There was a question as to what happened in the thread. The thread is now restored and thus I have endeavored to answer the questions with citations.

Squirrelloid:

Why do you think the members of this forum need your play by play? You weren't in on the discussion that brought about me reinstating the thread, and just pop in to make sure you could point fingers at who you thought was responsible? I think the forum members are quite able to draw there own conclusions. So in my book your post was not only unnecessary but was an attempt to create discord. We have had enough discord around here, so please cool it.

Regards,


Or maybe you deleted his post because it recounted exactly what happened and that didn't reflect well on Shrapnel or the people aligned with Shrapnel in this dialouge.


Uh, wouldn't the actual thread do that - recount exactly what happened?

[Raiel]

So, others can talk about "what happened" earlier in the thread, but Squirrelloid can't talk about "what happened"?

Did I drink a liter of scotch without realizing it? Because I'm confused.

Oh. Wait... I get it. After the thread is opened, there's no longer any need to discuss "what happened"? Because it's all there in the original thread. And Squirrelloid's post was deleted because it had inappropriate content or violated the ToS somehow?

I got it.

Nope... sorry, Lou. I lost it.

[militarist]

On more thing while we're on the subject and then I'm done with it...

It may be obvious to many that I am on Sombre's side. But here's why:

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?p=739462&highlight=living+hell#post739462

A moderator on this forum threatened to make Sombre's life a living hell.

This is so out of line that I cannot even begin to express my disgust. When I read this I was furious and intent on contacting the admins about this. However, I waited 'till I had a chance to get Sombre's take on it... he wasn't happy, but he was nowhere near as incensed as I. So, I didn't pursue it any further... but if your curious where Sombre's "lack of respect for the mods" originated, I suspect you need look no further than the above referenced post.


But in a context of "That said, I love you both. Play nice and go to your rooms" as he wrote below.

What can I say.. "Don't be evil". That's the only phrase comes to mind. I don't appreciate much how admins managed all the situation in result - forums which looks like a battlefield with a lot of corpses around doens't look like a good job.. But really. You should take context to account.

[reverend]

FWIW (probably not a lot, as I realise), I'll be staying away from this forum as well in the future. The behaviour of Shrapnel officials in this matter, or even this thread is no longer an athmosphere and community I wish to participate in, given that even their own mods in the other forums here are quite happy to be downright rude to anyone who dares offer a suggestion for improvement. As such, I'll also stop buying or promoting Shrapnel products in the future.

[Edi]

So, others can talk about "what happened" earlier in the thread, but Squirrelloid can't talk about "what happened"?

Did I drink a liter of scotch without realizing it? Because I'm confused.

Oh. Wait... I get it. After the thread is opened, there's no longer any need to discuss "what happened"? Because it's all there in the original thread. And Squirrelloid's post was deleted because it had inappropriate content or violated the ToS somehow?

I got it.

Nope... sorry, Lou. I lost it.

Depending on your point of view, Squirrelloid's post can either be seen as an accurate description of events, as a complete misrepresentation of them or as something in-between. The content of the post exists, but in the interests of avoiding more acrimony on the boards, it really is better if people read the Managing Communions - the sombre challenge thread for themselves and form their own opinion.

[Ragnarok-X]

Its amazing how all the wanne-bees jump to the troublemakers side. Rules are rules and i have no idea how anyone could claim "i dont buy shrapnel anymore" when all they did was was enforcing the rules which everyone agreed to when registering and using the board anyway. I can the punishment was obviously harsh, but it was their choice no matter what.

[Juffos]

Everybody is sad, nobody is happy. Isn't it sad, everybody?

:(

[Quitti]

Its amazing how all the wanne-bees jump to the troublemakers side. Rules are rules and i have no idea how anyone could claim "i dont buy shrapnel anymore" when all they did was was enforcing the rules which everyone agreed to when registering and using the board anyway. I can the punishment was obviously harsh, but it was their choice no matter what.

The point is that what the other community saw as injustice, namely, Sombre cussing or somesuch occasionally, making angry posts, never getting any public reprimand for it and then BAM permaban out of nowhere due replying that he does not care about the 10pt infraction he got. I'm certain that the situation is more complicated than that, but that's what it certainly looks like to most. Like one person on IRC said, it looks like the general idea of sombres ban was that not caring about a punishment (the 10pt infraction thing) permits a permaban.

Now, I don't agree with Shrapnels policy of banning him, but I recognize that this is their forum, and we must abide by their rules. Some people made good points in the night of long knives -thread, like that the rules say that generally you get three temp bans before a permanent one. The modding community has really lost important people due all this crap hitting the fan, like Sombre and Burnsaber, and the community as whole has lost a lot due people leaving in disgust due to Shrapnels take on this whole situation.

Juffos, we're all sombre due the situation, aren't we?

[Ragnarok-X]

Its amazing how all the wanne-bees jump to the troublemakers side. Rules are rules and i have no idea how anyone could claim "i dont buy shrapnel anymore" when all they did was was enforcing the rules which everyone agreed to when registering and using the board anyway. I can the punishment was obviously harsh, but it was their choice no matter what.

The point is that what the other community saw as injustice, namely, Sombre cussing or somesuch occasionally, making angry posts, never getting any public reprimand for it and then BAM permaban out of nowhere due replying that he does not care about the 10pt infraction he got. I'm certain that the situation is more complicated than that, but that's what it certainly looks like to most. Like one person on IRC said, it looks like the general idea of sombres ban was that not caring about a punishment (the 10pt infraction thing) permits a permaban.

Now, I don't agree with Shrapnels policy of banning him, but I recognize that this is their forum, and we must abide by their rules. Some people made good points in the night of long knives -thread, like that the rules say that generally you get three temp bans before a permanent one. The modding community has really lost important people due all this crap hitting the fan, like Sombre and Burnsaber, and the community as whole has lost a lot due people leaving in disgust due to Shrapnels take on this whole situation.

Juffos, we're all sombre due the situation, aren't we?

I dont know about this.
One guy is constantly bending the rules for a long time and everybody knows it, even he himself likely did.
At some he goes to far and then he is surprised when he gets a harsh punishment at some point ? You gotte be kidding me.
I dont think shrapnel has to warn someone 3 or 10 times. They can warn once, and thats it then. If you drive a car under alcohol, you dont get warned for that once before you get taken care of your licence. There are rules for a reason. Thats my opinion.

[Quitti]

I dont know about this.
One guy is constantly bending the rules for a long time and everybody knows it, even he himself likely did.
At some he goes to far and then he is surprised when he gets a harsh punishment at some point ? You gotte be kidding me.
I dont think shrapnel has to warn someone 3 or 10 times. They can warn once, and thats it then. If you drive a car under alcohol, you dont get warned for that once before you get taken care of your licence. There are rules for a reason. Thats my opinion.

Well, to be honest, drunk driving and forum trolling don't really compare well against each other. You don't get punished harshly by shouting random obscenities on the street, mayhaps get a fine for disturbing public peace, possibly get a night in the jail to cool your head off. This is in the western countries of course, from what I've observed. No idea what kind of death penalty that would warrant in more totalitarian countries of course.

Like I stated in the other thread, I agree that Sombre has been an ***, and probably won't stop, but I don't mind. What he does FOR the community outweights well more what he's doing "against" the "harmonious" workings of it. Also, he was not surprised from what I gather, he didn't care. Other people did.

[quantum_mechani]

A person can probably make it back in, under a new name, and act in a way that no one figures out its him/her.
This is a real problem. It's especially hard to moderate if there person in question is in a position of power, fortunately when some sleazebag tries this it usually becomes quite obvious.

[Humakty]

Not caring about the rules is considered enougth to be punished (well, more often than not), in our western world.

Everyone knows this for sure, even the most scandalous of punks, so no one should even be slightly surprised about the actual outcome of the present struggle.

Plus creating a special case for someone tends to weaken the rule overall, and, to speak frankly, I see enougth of priviledged people at work, and in real life, for not having to bear with some on the forum I do occasionally frequent.

Not that I personnally care much about the outcome of this conflict. Whatever will be fine for me.

[Sensori]

Not caring about the rules is considered enougth to be punished (well, more often than not), in our western world.

No it's not. You aren't punished for not caring about the rules, but for breaking the rules. Otherwise no one could say anything bad about any laws in place, since that in itself would be a violation. That's the difference between a supposedly democractic Western country and a totalitarian regime. And there are some rules that are bent constantly with very little consequence (like jaywalking; how often do people get fined for that?).

Plus creating a special case for someone tends to weaken the rule overall, and, to speak frankly, I see enougth of priviledged people at work, and in real life, for not having to bear with some on the forum I do occasionally frequent.

Yes, because **** is treason and the only appropriate response to it is exile. Just because you're jealous of other people's good fortunes in real life doesn't mean that they actually are more privileged in any other sense than having more cash and other material wealth than you. Unless you live in a country with rampant corruption, of course.

Not that I personnally care much about the outcome of this conflict. Whatever will be fine for me.

But you still care enough to post about it! :p

[Foodstamp]

Not caring about the rules is considered enougth to be punished (well, more often than not), in our western world.

No it's not. You aren't punished for not caring about the rules, but for breaking the rules. Otherwise no one could say anything bad about any laws in place, since that in itself would be a violation. That's the difference between a supposedly democractic Western country and a totalitarian regime. And there are some rules that are bent constantly with very little consequence (like jaywalking; how often do people get fined for that?).

Plus creating a special case for someone tends to weaken the rule overall, and, to speak frankly, I see enougth of priviledged people at work, and in real life, for not having to bear with some on the forum I do occasionally frequent.

Yes, because **** is treason and the only appropriate response to it is exile. Just because you're jealous of other people's good fortunes in real life doesn't mean that they actually are more privileged in any other sense than having more cash and other material wealth than you. Unless you live in a country with rampant corruption, of course.

Not that I personnally care much about the outcome of this conflict. Whatever will be fine for me.

But you still care enough to post about it! :p

Real law doesn't apply to forums. A better comparison would be a game with rules, say like golf. If another golfer shoved you every time you tried to make a shot, it would make the game more fun for me to watch, but I definitely wouldn't blame the PGA for not allowing the guy to play anymore. And I doubt any appeal he made on the basis that what he was doing was not against the law would have any affect on the ban.

Let's say you warn the guy to quit shoving other golfers and he basically gives a smart remark like "Oh no, your punishment doesn't phase me", you would probably escalate the punishment to a point to get him to stop shoving other golfers.

[Peter Ebbesen]

Peter was directly and specifically attacking and baiting Maerlande. Even if english is somehow not his first language, that is no defense of his conduct.

This is the thread:
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=45501

I certainly was out of line in that thread by the end of it, no doubt about that, and I accepted so publically in my last post in that thread... while most of the rest of you were busy trolling for responses.

I was trolled by Maerlande in post #10, when he explained that this wasn't a thread with serious posts, that his posts #1 and #5 were "irony" (not any definition of irony I know of covers that), and people should seek information other places to understand what it was about and that he knew perfectly well what he was doing and didn't seek help in a thread asking for help after both I and Verjigorm had tried to give helpful advice based on what was written in the first post.

It may not have been his intention to troll for responses with that response, but that is certainly the effect such a post has on people who have tried to give helpful advice and haven't yet realized that it is to be an evening with otherwise well-known posters spamming worthless and trolling posts all over the place and mocking those who don't "get it" in a puerile protest against something they see as a great injustice.

I swallowed his bait (whether he intended it to be so or not) hook, line, and sinker and answered in post #19 that I would have to beg to differ with his conclusion that he knew exactly well what he was doing, which, given the information provided until then in the thread about the in-game situation he was describing was a very reasonable answer, and suggested that in case he was using his so-called "irony" again, he was wasting other peoples' time with his posting.

Which was, as it turned out, most definitely the case. My advice was completely worthless due to not understanding the constraints of the game has was talking about, but as Maerlande apparently had no intention whatsoever to enlighten those of us who were trying to help him based on what he wrote about the constraints of the game, I find it hard to fault myself for giving worthless advice in this case.

In response, Maerlande in post #21 told me that it was only wasting my time if I was stupid and didn't understand what the thread was really about and he threw in the standard "But I'd never call you stupid. That's a banning offence." - this is a typical weasel attempt at evading forum rules by pretending not to be breaking them or, more charitably, an attempt at appearing witty while directly insulting somebody to their face.

Grame Dice in post #22 was the first poster to actually provide useful information on the situation Maerlande was talking about (which situation was not the one he wanted to discuss, apparently, because he didn't want any help despite asking about it - he just wanted to post another "sombre" thread as part of his forum spam).

I returned to the thread, threw my hands up in disgust at the by now rampant trolling, and posted a post #32 declaring my disgust with his trolling tactics and not intending to write a serious thread with an appropriate subject/OP - and performed a counter-weasel after suggesting that he post threads in a sensible manner by saying "Failing that, you can act like a real smeg-head, though I'd never call you a smeghead. That might a banning offense (depending on the amount of Red Dwarf sympathizers amongst the moderaters)."

By this time most everybody and his goat who were "in" on the joke/crisis/whine were posting trolling posts in the thread, and I wrote a sorrowful post as #48 in which I stated that the I despised the sort of in-jokes and trolling that the rest of you were imposing on the forum, that I hoped it wasn't a sign of things to come, and that we were probably all in violation of the forum rules by that point in the thread (with a few exceptions in which I did specifically NOT include myself, because I quite agree that my counter-weasel in #32 was probably over the line).

"Specifically attacking and baiting Maerlande"? Rational minds beg to differ if one assumes, as I do, that the purpose of threads are to discuss whatever topic is raised in the first post.

[Sensori]

Real law doesn't apply to forums. A better comparison would be a game with rules, say like golf.

That analogue's no better than the real life analogue, and I was only responding to the other person's "but if you talk against rules in real life you get punished!" line. And why would I say it's no better? Because these are forums for a game, not the game itself. And as you know, you can have any number of forums, official or unofficial. Golf has its own mechanics, its own rules, as does Dominions 3. The analogue works between games, but not between a forum and a game.

People can just pack up and leave a forum if they feel that they've been wronged. You can't do that quite as easily with a game, be it a professional one like golf or Dominions 3.

[Soyweiser]

Not caring about the rules is considered enougth to be punished (well, more often than not), in our western world.

Everyone knows this for sure, even the most scandalous of punks, so no one should even be slightly surprised about the actual outcome of the present struggle.


This true, you see police officers do this often. But the police officers themselves get then punished for not following the law. Sadly, a lot of officers also get away with this kind of behavior. This is also why people are mad. Not because Sombre was punished. He should have been. But because the punishment broke the rules shrapnel said they would follow.

All the talk about "he had it coming", "we have been watching him for some time" was not transparant. He should have had infractions and tempbans first.

The quote by Humakty is also why punkers and squatters have a large distrust for anyone in power. They have seen the abuse of people in power firsthand.

About the Ballbarian incident:
That one could have been seen as a joke, if it was in context of the game. "If you take province x,y I will make your life a living hell". Which is normal ballbusting and macho "i'm in a position of power (please don't attack me" bluff behaviour. But this was in context of a moderation action. So Sombre saw it as a power trip. A threat by the moderators. And he isn't somebody whos buttons you should push. (Which the moderators know, "we have been watching him for some time" remember).

He felt warned more than Sept for the whole incident. And the stuff escalated from there.

[Sensori]

I was trolled by Maerlande in post #10,

No you weren't. I can see he just explained the reason behind the thread and that the situation sort of related to something that really happened. In fact, what he was trying to do was to get you and the other guy out of the thread civilly before it would turn into a flame war.

And the form of irony he was using was the kind used in this particular picture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2008_Olympic_Torch_Relay_in_SF_-_Justin_Herman_Plaza_73.JPG). Since he had actually gone through a situation much like the one he actually described, but he knew exactly what had gone wrong and whatnot. :p

[Humakty]

I was rather punky when younger, if that brings some light on my comments.... So I do bear with 'atrocious rule breakers', mind you. :)

But I'm older now, and I can understand how this attitude can upset other people. Tolerance has to be a two way road, or it is worthless.

[Soyweiser]

Tolerance has to be a two way road, or it is worthless.

True, some things did after the banning of Sombre where also way out of line. (The images thread for example). But I still think both sides where out of line.

[Sensori]

Oh, but it appears that Sombre was banned not for breaking the rules, for which he only got 10 infraction points, but for saying, in a PM, that he didn't care about the mods and their infraction points (which largely don't affect your forum life until you get a whole bunch of 'em, so there's not much reason to care about them when you just have ten). Since to him they are just strangers.

I doubt a policeman would incarcerate you just for saying that you don't care about a ticket and the law enforcement, either, as long as you aren't being aggressive about it (I doubt Sombre was doing an ALL CAPS I H8 U ALL at the mods), if you want an analogue. :p

[Tim Brooks]

Okay we are back to explaining what everyone can see for themselves. I'm locking the thread. Why is it so hard for people just to let others read the thread and draw their own conclusions from the facts?

As to the sombre incident, that has been beaten to death.