Medal Stripping

[QoH]

They already said we dont have to be warned. So any of us can loose our medals if we do "something" they dont like...... GL figuring out what something is.....They wont tell us anything specific

May I refer you to this thread?

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=156066

[jgordon1111]

I believe then that they may be telling us in their own way that the letter of the rules will be inforced. And again my reply is that it is fair and across the board equal from this point forward.That any and all who violate the rules are punished exactly the same,no grey areas at all. None of this well that wasnt as bad as what so and so did,No if you are going to set guidelines as rules then follow them for everyone an offense of the rules is equally offensive no matter the circumstances.

[jj3044]

1) This isn't a court of law. Obviously captain obvious

2) There was always going to be 1 clan that got hit with the rule "first". To think you were discriminated against because you were the first clan the rule got applied to is a bit foolish. Unless you were that clan of course... then you wouldn't be happy now would you?

3) Am I the only one who plainly sees that there were TWO warnings in the thread? I definitely think the post on page 21 would count as a warning. OK yes we see they hinted at us to stop being naughty, we get it, we got it... we could care less about our medals now as we know the mods on CC would never overturn their ruling or it would be chaos and the world would end. I was pissed at first because I am a big fan of medals and we worked hard to win that war.. after the "official warning" we stopped.. the first warning was clearly not official to us, but to clans that want us to get stripped naked they would state that it was a "official warning".. so this is a never ending thread...

Lets be clear, Griff... I have absolutely no vested interest weather or not your medals get stripped. I'm just calling 'em as I see 'em.

Just trying to give my fact based opinion here.

[grifftron]

1) This isn't a court of law. Obviously captain obvious

2) There was always going to be 1 clan that got hit with the rule "first". To think you were discriminated against because you were the first clan the rule got applied to is a bit foolish. Unless you were that clan of course... then you wouldn't be happy now would you?

3) Am I the only one who plainly sees that there were TWO warnings in the thread? I definitely think the post on page 21 would count as a warning. OK yes we see they hinted at us to stop being naughty, we get it, we got it... we could care less about our medals now as we know the mods on CC would never overturn their ruling or it would be chaos and the world would end. I was pissed at first because I am a big fan of medals and we worked hard to win that war.. after the "official warning" we stopped.. the first warning was clearly not official to us, but to clans that want us to get stripped naked they would state that it was a "official warning".. so this is a never ending thread...

Lets be clear, Griff... I have absolutely no vested interest weather or not your medals get stripped. I'm just calling 'em as I see 'em.

Just trying to give my fact based opinion here.

Would you be upset if a mod came in your war thread, said something that made you not so happy and in the heat of the moment you called that mod (who wasn't even in the war) a dickhead... then didn't receive your medal because you called that mod a dickhead? Call that as you see it, interested to see your response.

-griff

[betiko]

actually griff, you said it to a mod who removed his mod hat, as he quoted, to say something unpleassant (again, and as happened during the whole war) about the pack, so technically used a small window of time to answer while his mod hat was not on his head. It's easy to remove literally your mod had to say bad things then punishing whoever replies pissed off stripping a hardly earned medal. life is pain, as his avatar says!

what happened to your cute puppy avatar?? lol, it didn't last long!

[jghost7]

1) This isn't a court of law. Obviously captain obvious

2) There was always going to be 1 clan that got hit with the rule "first". To think you were discriminated against because you were the first clan the rule got applied to is a bit foolish. Unless you were that clan of course... then you wouldn't be happy now would you? I don't think that anyone is upset about being first. There are some big concerns about this vague statement that they call a rule. The first is the fact that the rule is vague and has no definition allowing interpretations to be varied, nonuniform, and based on an opinion. In addition, the fact that only a small group(clan war winners only) are being targeted for disciplinary actions is unjust when indeed there are usually multiple sides to any post. With such a purely undefined statement being used as a "rule", the warning/notice becomes VERY important, and must be clear; I also believe that the warning must be required with the exception of infractions that cross the forum-wide boundary. In my opinion, if the CD's only recourse is to withhold the clan medals, then they should not be trying to meddle in the war threads. This action is flawed because it only covers about 11-30 players at one time vs. 550000+ players that are permitted to post in a clan war thread. I believe that if they were to have an option to cover the non-winning/non-participating violators then it would at least have the option to be fair once they clarified the rule.

3) Am I the only one who plainly sees that there were TWO warnings in the thread? I definitely think the post on page 21 would count as a warning. OK yes we see they hinted at us to stop being naughty, we get it, we got it... we could care less about our medals now as we know the mods on CC would never overturn their ruling or it would be chaos and the world would end. I was pissed at first because I am a big fan of medals and we worked hard to win that war.. after the "official warning" we stopped.. the first warning was clearly not official to us, but to clans that want us to get stripped naked they would state that it was a "official warning".. so this is a never ending thread... Uhhhhh....no....that is not a warning on page 21. As stated by cheme, it was a reminder to everyone that the vague statement(rule?) existed. He even adds that he finds the thread "highly amusing and right on the edge of what a war thread should look like." Here it is for your perusal...

I just want to let everyone know that the CDs are watching this thread closely. I also want to remind you all of the following:

Subject: Clan Medals [Revamp 2011]

War Thread Behaviour

In order to curb some poor behaviour in the war threads, players will be denied medals if their behaviour is deemed to be disruptive or inappropriate, even if it does not meet the site wide policy for a forum infraction. In the past, we’ve locked war threads due to the behaviour of a single individual, thus inherently punishing both clans. In order to be consistent, this will only be applied by the Clan Dept Head (most often these issues are raised by the CD team).

In other words, let's keep this civil. Thanks.

Can you quote specifically what particular posts you are getting at or is this just another one jumping on the posters against the pack bandwagon? I have no particular allegience to either clan but it does seem that the so called neutrals on here seem to be well against the pack and their members. Certain members of the pack have continued to request that the thread is kept civil and asked that certain posters respectfully refrain from posting but the baits keep coming. I therefore hope your comment was more of a general observation as opposed to another biased attack

To the Peanut Gallery:

Both clan leaders know we CDs, myself included, have nothing against either clan. If fact, both clan leaders have pm'd me expressing their approval of this reminder. The reminder was directed at everyone, including players not in this war. Thus far the thread is highly amusing and right on the edge (give or take a word or two) of what a WAR thread probably should look like. If anyone has any further issues please feel free to message any of the CDs for further discussions.

This one is going to be close. I personally blew my prediction on this one. For that, I anticipate plenty of (deserved) crap from The Pack Let's keep in clean and keep it fun.

Cheers.

[jj3044]

Would you be upset if a mod came in your war thread, said something that made you not so happy and in the heat of the moment you called that mod (who wasn't even in the war) a dickhead... then didn't receive your medal because you called that mod a dickhead? Call that as you see it, interested to see your response.

-griff

To be honest, you would never see me lose control and call someone a dickhead on this site. I can tell you that in one of my side-jobs (as a referee), if a player calls me a dickhead, his ass is ejected from the game immediately, regardless of if I made the absolutely worst call in the history of the game. The premise is that you should have respect for those in charge. I see a similar situation here.

HOWEVER, I will concede that the rule itself doesn't have the ability to punish both parties, so I would question its effectiveness (to jghost's post). No one questioned it at its inception however. The rule is only now being questioned because you were the first clan it was applied to.

RE the post on page 21: A "reminder" or a "warning"? Seems about the same to me. Quoting the rule in public, bringing it to every reader's attention...

[betiko]

Would you be upset if a mod came in your war thread, said something that made you not so happy and in the heat of the moment you called that mod (who wasn't even in the war) a dickhead... then didn't receive your medal because you called that mod a dickhead? Call that as you see it, interested to see your response.

-griff

To be honest, you would never see me lose control and call someone a dickhead on this site. I can tell you that in one of my side-jobs (as a referee), if a player calls me a dickhead, his ass is ejected from the game immediately, regardless of if I made the absolutely worst call in the history of the game. The premise is that you should have respect for those in charge. I see a similar situation here.

HOWEVER, I will concede that the rule itself doesn't have the ability to punish both parties, so I would question its effectiveness (to jghost's post). No one questioned it at its inception however. The rule is only now being questioned because you were the first clan it was applied to.

RE the post on page 21: A "reminder" or a "warning"? Seems about the same to me. Quoting the rule in public, bringing it to every reader's attention...

oh a perfect example!!! did you constantly make fun of his team, did you say before the game that you predicted their ass to be spanked, did you say that you hated his team and all?? no, you have been impartial as a referee should be. Should you kick out a player who calls you a dickhead during a game as you did? hell yes! You did not disrespect them; you made an error of judgement, and he disrespected you.
If we have felt disrespected by the mod several times in the thread, of course it can get out of hands and griff answered inapropriately at some point.
I think that a mod should not be allowed any type of judgement in a thread he is moderating and should remain neutral. otherwise it's an abuse of power, and we are all customers here, not employees.

[jj3044]

oh a perfect example!!! did you constantly make fun of his team, did you say before the game that you predicted their ass to be spanked, did you say that you hated his team and all?? no, you have been impartial as a referee should be. Should you kick out a player who calls you a dickhead during a game as you did? hell yes! You did not disrespect them; you made an error of judgement, and he disrespected you.
If we have felt disrespected by the mod several times in the thread, of course it can get out of hands and griff answered inapropriately at some point.
I think that a mod should not be allowed any type of judgement in a thread he is moderating and should remain neutral. otherwise it's an abuse of power, and we are all customers here, not employees.

You are correct. If you felt that you were disrespected by a mod, then you should bring it up... but not in the public forum. That is a completely separate issue then what the OP stated and asked about. Engaging in that kind of ... i'll call it... debate... in the public is bad form. If The Pack had an issue wit Cheme's behavior, they should have raised it to an admin, not call him a dickhead in public.

[jghost7]

Would you be upset if a mod came in your war thread, said something that made you not so happy and in the heat of the moment you called that mod (who wasn't even in the war) a dickhead... then didn't receive your medal because you called that mod a dickhead? Call that as you see it, interested to see your response.

-griff

To be honest, you would never see me lose control and call someone a dickhead on this site. I can tell you that in one of my side-jobs (as a referee), if a player calls me a dickhead, his ass is ejected from the game immediately, regardless of if I made the absolutely worst call in the history of the game. The premise is that you should have respect for those in charge. I see a similar situation here.

HOWEVER, I will concede that the rule itself doesn't have the ability to punish both parties, so I would question its effectiveness (to jghost's post). No one questioned it at its inception however. The rule is only now being questioned because you were the first clan it was applied to. I am not aware of when that rule was put out, nor am I aware of how many players were involved in putting it together. I think I may have seen it once before but never paid any attention to it. I am assuming that a large number of players fits this description. I don't think that would justify a faulty rule implementation just because wasn't questioned before. I am not overtly criticizing the attempt by the CD's to help moderate war threads, but I would like it to be fair, and clear to players. Also, seeing that it would be the first time that they would implement it, one, they should be open to see its flaws and adjust accordingly, and two, would be more thorough in implementing it rather than through blunt force trauma. I would hope that the CD's would be more open and be able to be flexible in regards to matters like this so that everyone will feel that the right thing is being done. Was it questioned at its inception, I don't know. Is it being questioned now, YES. Now that I have seen it and really looked at it, I am definitely questioning it. It needs to be amended and clarified, and also have the ability to sanction all parties involved. By the way, I am a neutral party in this discussion. LOL.

RE the post on page 21: A "reminder" or a "warning"? Seems about the same to me. Quoting the rule in public, bringing it to every reader's attention... Ahhh, perhaps with a well established rule with a definition in place to remove doubts about what is and is not allowed. But with this rule being new, and with this rule being undefined, and the wording of the 'reminder' being general and not a "warning" to a player or party, then I would not consider this a warning at all, but just a reminder as cheme so aptly termed it. When virtually anything can be included in the definition of this rule, a more specific and official warning would be warranted.

BTW, Thanks for this discussion.

J

[malevolous]

Nice bait, J. Just a side thing, the note/warning says things are right on the line. To my mind that would say, "If you post even one more inappropriate thing, you could cross the line." So I personally see that as an absolute warning. Its like a no trespassing sign. If you see it, continue on, and then get busted, I don't think you can say it wasn't sufficient warning and expect no consequences. K, analogy done.

[jghost7]

Nice bait, J. Just a side thing, the note/warning says things are right on the line. To my mind that would say, "If you post even one more inappropriate thing, you could cross the line." So I personally see that as an absolute warning. Its like a no trespassing sign. If you see it, continue on, and then get busted, I don't think you can say it wasn't sufficient warning and expect no consequences. K, analogy done.

For the record, It is not a "bait". Nothing that I just wrote was intended to be inflammatory or even heated. I assumed it was a logical discussion of this topic, and that was what jj was pursuing.

As to the note/warning, it doesn't say what your mind says, but perhaps it should. Either way I am not attacking or defending what was in that thread. I have read it, and have found it entertaining for the most part. But , given the vagueness of the rule, the specificity of the warning is warranted. What is the line that you are not crossing? It is not defined, therefore you may only give an approximation. Most people know where the line is on a regular forum infraction and can easily avoid trouble of this nature. Here, we have a situation where anything you say could get you busted because of the wavering line. When the clan leader was pm'd and it was specifically addressed(I assume based on the post), is when a proper warning was given. Also, about consequences, if you feel that some of the things the Pack members wrote were offensive, there were other posts from non Pack members that would have been at the same level. And if that is the case, then what "consequences" were divvied up between them?

This is not a personal thing. I think that this would be an opportunity to straighten out this rule to make it more viable for future use. I think that if nothing is done, it would only get worse and would incur more hard feelings for the site and its volunteers.

Thanks for listening,

J

[tec805]

"If you post even one more inappropriate thing, you could cross the line." So I personally see that as an absolute warning. Its like a no trespassing sign. If you see it, continue on, and then get busted, I don't think you can say it wasn't sufficient warning and expect no consequences. K, analogy done.

Poor analogy. No trespassing means stop, go no further. A posted speed limit sign would better fit the situation; Here's the limit, you can continue but don't exceed it. Though this speed limit sign didn't say 65 on it, it said "Somewhere between 35-85, if you guess wrong you are screwed, but only if you finish first, otherwise you're good to go as fast as you like. Unless I don't like our past history, then you're screwed already.".

[John Deere]

"If you post even one more inappropriate thing, you could cross the line." So I personally see that as an absolute warning. Its like a no trespassing sign. If you see it, continue on, and then get busted, I don't think you can say it wasn't sufficient warning and expect no consequences. K, analogy done.

Poor analogy. No trespassing means stop, go no further. A posted speed limit sign would better fit the situation; Here's the limit, you can continue but don't exceed it. Though this speed limit sign didn't say 65 on it, it said "Somewhere between 35-85, if you guess wrong you are screwed, but only if you finish first, otherwise you're good to go as fast as you like. Unless I don't like our past history, then you're screwed already.".

Damnit tec! quite making sense, your gonna make some of these people over think....

[BYUwonder11]

You are correct. If you felt that you were disrespected by a mod, then you should bring it up... but not in the public forum. That is a completely separate issue then what the OP stated and asked about. Engaging in that kind of ... i'll call it... debate... in the public is bad form. If The Pack had an issue wit Cheme's behavior, they should have raised it to an admin, not call him a dickhead in public.

I think that's the main thing here, obviously I think there are things that have happened and been said on both sides that shouldn't have been said, but I things got blown WAY out of proportion just because as stated these things were made public, tempers flare and then people get sensitive and start assuming that baiting is happening and a host of other things. They made a tough call in enforcing a rule. Would I be happy about that? Hell no, but at the same time you can't allow something like this to get to escalate the way it has when originally I don't think that was Cheme's intention. Just sayin'