Medal Stripping

by **malevolous** on Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:52 am

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.

by **jghost7** on Tue Nov 22, 2011 11:25 am

malevolous wrote: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

by **tec805** on Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:13 pm

malevolous wrote:"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.".

by **John Deere** on Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:24 pm

tec805 wrote:
malevolous wrote:"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.... :lol:

by **BYUwonder11** on Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:40 pm

jj3044 wrote:
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'

by **malevolous** on Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:25 pm

jghost7 wrote:
malevolous wrote: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

The question about discipline when there are no medals awarded is the only thing that requires attention, in my opinion. I agree that the thread was offensive, but that was from 2 different sides. One got disciplined, but the rule will only result in one sided abuse once the war is decided if no penalty is assessed beyond medals (unless its intended that the medal lost would be for a previous war, which is a tad counter-intuitive). I still say in my mind at least the warning would have been sufficient to deter me. If you care about civility, or at least care about avoiding loss due to infraction, saying you're one or two words from the edge would have me back-pedaling and toning it down. Any other response is just plain reckless. If I'm driving on a road and I'm one or two inches(words) from the edge, I would definitely step it back, or I shouldn't complain against the edge when I lose my car/health/life/(medals) as it was my choice to continue toeing the line. People were told they were on the line, and they chose to continue to try and stay as near as possible. They ended up over the line, and now are upset they fell. Rules are the bare minimum to preserve civility and a sociable atmosphere. Staying just on this side of it is to say you aren't afraid of crossing it. Now its been crossed, and people, instead of being grateful for any warning at all(most enforcement in the world is done without warnings), are upset they have to pay the consequence when they ignored it.

That said, I definitely think a penalty should be in place that goes into effect regardless of if the offender wins, or even participates in the war. Also, a higher degree of definition is also called for. A law should be clearer as to what is inappropriate. Avoiding excessive baiting, profanity, flaming, and even disrespect are the common sense codes of civility I try to abide by, but some people enjoy indulging in such things, and need the clarity of a well defined rule.

by **tec805** on Tue Nov 22, 2011 7:22 pm

This thread is so stale from lack of use it should really be archived. Swept under the rug so to say.

by **GeneralRisk** on Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:24 pm

They took your advice

by **jghost7** on Wed Nov 23, 2011 7:56 pm

Why is this in the archives?
Is there another place to discuss this rule?

J

by **tec805** on Wed Nov 23, 2011 9:53 pm

jghost7 wrote:Why is this in the archives?
Is there another place to discuss this rule?

J

Not a thread the mods care to have hanging around getting peoples attention. Next time it won't be The Pack this happens to but people will remember this thread none the less.

by **BoganGod** on Fri Nov 25, 2011 8:31 am

Not sure of the dates for the IA thang, thepack has spammed up the legion vs BoFM ACC 3rd round thread. Possibly in a lame attempt to keep on baiting chemefreak. Don't know whether this occurred after or before the warning for the IA clan war thread.

by **tec805** on Fri Nov 25, 2011 1:20 pm

BoganGod wrote:Not sure of the dates for the IA thang, thepack has spammed up the legion vs BoFM ACC 3rd round thread. Possibly in a lame attempt to keep on baiting chemefreak. Don't know whether this occurred after or before the warning for the IA clan war thread.

After the medals were denied.

I finally found the reason my medal was denied (besides multiple posting of course):

tec805 wrote:
hmsps wrote:...is this just another one jumping on the posters against the pack bandwagon? ...but it does seem that the so called neutrals on here seem to be well against the pack and their members...

I actually have to commend chemefreak on holding his tongue in this thread - he has been so anti-Pack for some reason that I'd expect him to do everything he could to cause us grief