Rules Determination

[SirSebstar]

same infraction, same words, same rules different outcomes. this needs to be rectified.

different rules, same words, different situation, differnt outcomes.
Lets use another hyperbole.
you come into my house and kill me = murder
You come into my house with the intent to kill me. I kill you first. = self defense
1 man is dead = same outcome. it all hinges on the specifics of the case.
BG calling you a douche, affectionate..
you trolling after him, different in intent, and everybody and your mom knows that. The fact that you will not recognize it, does not change that the rest does see it and you for what you are.

if you are asked to stay away from somebody, you just do that. if you dont, then you will be damned for it.
I get that you are rancuneus about it DiM, but by now it should be crystel clear to you.

[DiM]

you're grasping at straws here, clinging on to details and using exaggerated examples.


let's do this again. i'll try to avoid any confusion.

Case 1.
player A posts "f*ck you player B"
player B reports the post. but player A is a mod/admin/veteran/respected member of the community/etc, or he simply gets lucky to catch the mod taking care of this report in a good mood. so the mod decides to spare player A and sends player B the following response:

"Dear player B, coarse language is generally allowed, so if you find something disagreeable we encourage you to use your Foes List."

the ruling is perfectly within the rules.

Case 2
player C posts "f*ck you player D"
player D reports the post. but player C is not liked by the mod reviewing this report, or perhaps the mod is simply in a bad mood so it's nothing personal so he sends player C the following message:

"Dear player C, it doesn't matter if another user rubs you the wrong way, that's not an excuse to flame or personally attack them. You are hereby warned/banned for breaching this rule."

and again the ruling is perfectly within the rules.

[Woodruff]

Lets put that post in context douche.

While I am sympathetic to chemefreak being subjected to that post and while I can personally understand why he (as an individual) might react as he did, this is no excuse. If I, as a teacher, reacted to one of my customers (be it a student or their parent), I would undoubtedly be punished, and quite possibly fired. NO MATTER WHAT I was responding to. So I guess what I'm saying is...as a representative of the site, and in response to a customer, chemefreak's response SHOULD be viewed as unacceptable. I understand that chemefreak is a volunteer, and I would agree that adds a bit of mitigation to the situation...but only a bit.

Many people think that the mods should be a punching bag for the community.
From the Community Guidelines
"They aren't "staff" and they don't have to take crap from other members just because they have a special colour in their name."

I do not at all believe the mods should be punching bags for the community, but they absolutely should respond as a representative of the site. No, let me put that another way...they ARE responding as a representative of the site, and so when the site doesn't do anything about such a situation, the PERCEPTION THAT BECOMES REALITY is that the site won't punish it's representatives and that they have different standards of conduct than the normal users (and not in a positive way).

[Woodruff]

ah, so if a users incites a mod then the mod is allowed to curse that user as much as he want, right?
is the opposite ok too?
for example you just called me a douche and i haven't provoked you in any way. so basically you started this.
can i start cursing you and it will be ok?

No, that's called flaming. It's different. I'm not sure why.

[Woodruff]

You can call me a douche, I dont care.
I didnt prove a point.. You do that a lot. You make statements that are obvious but add an incorrect conclusion to backup your ridiculous statement.

The mods are allowed to talk however they want. We have establishing that, it didnt prove a point...

but the community has to take crap from the moderators?
what about the people that PAY to play on this site and are cursed by the staff?

You fail to realize that moderators ARE community members.

I've received a 3-month ban for far less than what chemefreak said there (granting that I had previous offenses which added up to the three-month ban being the appropriate step). So at a minimum, chemefreak should have received whatever step on the ladder would be appropriate. So that kind of proves the point of what is being said here.

[agentcom]

DiM: If you have an actual suggestion for where the line should be drawn, let us know. I know you wouldn't draw it at "douche." If you want to ask hypothetical questions about what is and what isn't allowed, go somewhere else, figure it out and come back to us with why it's right or wrong.

it's not about drawing an arbitrary line. that's both stupid and ineffective.
you can't tell people that douche is ok but f*ck is not. it all depends on context and common sense.
i don't want to ban all cuss words or even a part of them. by all means if CC wants to permit any form of cursing imaginable then i'm ok with it.
what i do want is that the same rules are applied to all people regardless if they're mods, veteran users, or a guy that joined 2 days ago.
bg called me a douche. i told him that i'm offended by that and yet he continued to call me a douche.
if i call you a douche now and you tell me you're offended and i keep calling you a douche, will i get banned?


also, getting back to the rules. they are very ambiguous and offer a mod the possibility to judge 2 identical cases in 2 different ways.

for example BG calls me a douche. i report him and i get the following answer quoted from the rules:
"Coarse language is generally allowed, so if you find something disagreeable we encourage you to use your Foes List."
basically i'm being told i should ignore him and BG isn't punished. perfectly within the rules.

i get mad and i come to the forum and i call BG a douche. he reports me and i get banned because according to the same rules:
"It doesn't matter if another user rubs you the wrong way, that's not an excuse to flame or personally attack them."
and since calling somebody a douche can be considered a flame/personal attack i can be warned/banned. again perfectly within the rules.

same infraction, same words, same rules different outcomes. this needs to be rectified.

In the example above, if it was left at the initial name calling and the response, I would hope (and it is my understanding) that both users would get some variation of the first response. If either one of the parties has been or continues to repeatedly post in the hypothetical thread and/or others, my understanding is that they are flirting with a warning.

also, getting back to the rules. they are very ambiguous and offer a mod the possibility to judge 2 identical cases in 2 different ways.

If you are familiar with the American legal system (and many others I would presume), this is fairly close to the Real World situation, as well. It sucks, but I'm not sure what to do about it. That's what we're here to discuss.

Finally, I asked you guys to cool it down, and the personal attacks seem to have died down. Thank you.

DiM your last example with "player A" and "player B" is a good post. Let's try not to turn this thread into an example of what people are and are not allowed to get away with. Bringing up real C&A cases is fine. Just keep in mind that they may have been decided in different times or there may be more context than what is posted. So, try to do so fairly and with the proper caveats. And if you don't, don't be surprised if someone does it for you. But let's avoid personal attacks on either the poster or the responder. If anyone including Moderators, DiM or other users want to test the waters on what is or is not acceptable, do so elsewhere. This is not general discussion.

[pimpdave]

This thread is amazing. I can't wait to finish the entire thing, but the OP is hilarious.

[pimpdave]

Wasn't Woodruff calling children "fucking retards" constantly for awhile? Hang on, brb.


Yup, found a great example. Check out this post, in which he's addressing a twelve year old:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=124989&p=2746977&hilit=f*ck#p2746977


This thread is hilarious. I'm not even through page one yet and I already have tears streaming down my face, I'm laughing so hard.

[Woodruff]

Wasn't Woodruff calling children "fucking retards" constantly for awhile? Hang on, brb.

Yup, found a great example. Check out this post, in which he's addressing a twelve year old:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=124989&p=2746977&hilit=f*ck#p2746977

This thread is hilarious. I'm not even through page one yet and I already have tears streaming down my face, I'm laughing so hard.

Were you going to talk about the content of the thread, or are you satisfied with just trolling it? Because your statements don't at all point out a problem with the original post.

But well done bringing up a post from two years ago.

[pimpdave]

Well, there's a lot to read Woodruff. I'm digesting it bit by bit. I could rush through all of it, but it gets a little boring. Maybe it's because I am, by your declaration on several occasions, a "fucking retard".

I have contributed something already, but it's not trolling. Are you actually serious about this thread? Why do you demand everyone walk on eggshells when dealing with you, but then also demand the right to treat everyone else like dirt? That's the part I don't understand. That's what my post points towards. If those rules were removed, it's a safe bet you'd flame every person on this site every day, instead of just wearing out your mouse hitting the report button. You claim to be so thoroughly abused, but do a lot of abusing. Maybe the problem is you, and not the website. Isn't there a mirror you should be inspecting somewhere?

Although I do think the mods should punish Night Strike the same way they do everyone else, because Night Strike absolutely has flamed, posted racism and trolled, in the exact ways the mods people ban other people for. In fact, for things other people only did because Night Strike is allowed to do it, so it establishes that if it's not against the rules for him, it must not be for everyone else.

[Woodruff]

Well, there's a lot to read Woodruff. I'm digesting it bit by bit. I could rush through all of it, but it gets a little boring. Maybe it's because I am, by your declaration on several occasions, a "fucking retard".

I have contributed something already, but it's not trolling. Are you actually serious about this thread? Why do you demand everyone walk on eggshells when dealing with you, but then also demand the right to treat everyone else like dirt? That's the part I don't understand. That's what my post points towards. If those rules were removed, it's a safe bet you'd flame every person on this site every day, instead of just wearing out your mouse hitting the report button. You claim to be so thoroughly abused, but do a lot of abusing. Maybe the problem is you, and not the website. Isn't there a mirror you should be inspecting somewhere?

It seems to me that you're supporting my original post while attempting to put me down for my original post. An interesting contradiction.

[agentcom]

Wasn't Woodruff calling children "fucking retards" constantly for awhile? Hang on, brb.


Yup, found a great example. Check out this post, in which he's addressing a twelve year old:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=124989&p=2746977&hilit=f*ck#p2746977


This thread is hilarious. I'm not even through page one yet and I already have tears streaming down my face, I'm laughing so hard.

Woodruff, I apologize for not seeing this sooner. The thread is LOCKED for a moment until I find out that this pimpdave guy has been dealt with. This is obviously trolling and has nothing whatsoever to deal with this post. However things may be handled over in the more casual, conversational fora, this is obviously not acceptable here. Thank you everyone else for not taking the bait and derailing what has been a very interesting conversation.

[rdsrds2120]

Unlocked! Please continue in an appropriate manner of Discussion!

-rd

[Woodruff]

Wasn't Woodruff calling children "fucking retards" constantly for awhile? Hang on, brb.

Yup, found a great example. Check out this post, in which he's addressing a twelve year old:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=124989&p=2746977&hilit=f*ck#p2746977

This thread is hilarious. I'm not even through page one yet and I already have tears streaming down my face, I'm laughing so hard.

For what it's worth, this individual was not a twelve year old (he's 48 according to his profile). No, that doesn't excuse my rant, nor do I mean it to...but I thought it was worth clarifying.

[agentcom]

Unlocked! Please continue in an appropriate manner of Discussion!

-rd

Thanks rd, I was about to do the same.

For what it's worth, ...

Not much. I understand you trying to clear your name, but let's just get this thing back on track. Thanks.