Conquer Club

Was Woodruff banned for flaming carpetman? Because getting banned for flaming a multi who was intentionally baiting you seems a little harsh.

Woodruff is serving his forum ban for violating the forum guidelines. It is not an excuse to flame back or bait anyone whether if the other person is a multi or not.

I'm closing this since this is not even a report.

king achilles wrote:Woodruff is serving his forum ban for violating the forum guidelines. It is not an excuse to flame back or bait anyone whether if the other person is a multi or not.

I'm closing this since this is not even a report.

Interesting- you're basically saying that if you get annoyed by a troll poster that specifically aims to annoy you, then you're as much to blame. Indeed, that you should have a greater penalty, in that your honest one and only account is the one that gets banned, and the multi was never intended for anything other than deliberate sabotage.

I wonder, who reported Woody? Not, I hope, someone closely aligned with the troll? That might suggest you were played, and played well. I'm not asking for details, just a little introspection. Or simply a bit of common sense.

Still, the lesson to be learned is that if you only have one account, and keep it fairly and honestly, you shouldn't be thought of as better than trolls who create multiple accounts simply to flame and look for vindictive bans when a response is elicited.

Clearly the most reasonable explanation is that it was a vast troll-wing conspiracy to get Woodruff.

Nope. From what I saw carpetman was just being his usual fun self, doing no damage to the site and breaking no rules (except according to the mods he was a multi, but whatever) and Woodruff just went off on him. Nothing was targeted at Woodruff.

pimpdave wrote:Clearly the most reasonable explanation is that it was a vast troll-wing conspiracy to get Woodruff.

Nope. From what I saw carpetman was just being his usual fun self, doing no damage to the site and breaking no rules (except according to the mods he was a multi, but whatever) and Woodruff just went off on him. Nothing was targeted at Woodruff.

Interesting strawman, but the dude was a multi, and trolling for whatever response he could get.

Symmetry wrote:

king achilles wrote:Woodruff is serving his forum ban for violating the forum guidelines. It is not an excuse to flame back or bait anyone whether if the other person is a multi or not.

I'm closing this since this is not even a report.

Interesting- you're basically saying that if you get annoyed by a troll poster that specifically aims to annoy you, then you're as much to blame. Indeed, that you should have a greater penalty, in that your honest one and only account is the one that gets banned, and the multi was never intended for anything other than deliberate sabotage.

I wonder, who reported Woody? Not, I hope, someone closely aligned with the troll? That might suggest you were played, and played well. I'm not asking for details, just a little introspection. Or simply a bit of common sense.

Still, the lesson to be learned is that if you only have one account, and keep it fairly and honestly, you shouldn't be thought of as better than trolls who create multiple accounts simply to flame and look for vindictive bans when a response is elicited.

Agreed. There's something in law known as mitigating factors. Given the reality that a multi was purposely trying to bait a poster; then this factor should be weighted the most. There should be a a compelling enough reason not to overturn the ban. One such compelling reason might be Woodruff's flaming history. However, this reason is not given. CC admin is absolutely stating that mitigating factors should not exist in regards to the forum. That seems unfair and even harsh. It even legitimizes multis who are seeking to create chaos and ruin the CC experience for others. I say all of this having directly served a ban in the wake of Woodruff's antics.

Baiting does not excuse responding to the bait. If someone baits you in a way that is against the site rules, you can report him. Or you can go off and take the bait...

Let's say you beat up someone (let's say you're in a bar and you're drunk, in case you need some background on this hypothetical situation) and later get charged with assault... do you think the judge will exonerate you if you tell him "well, the other guy wasn't even a regular customer, and he purposefully annoyed me"?


The bottom line is, we're all responsible for our own actions, and no one is forcing anyone to break the rules...

natty dread wrote:Baiting does not excuse responding to the bait. If someone baits you in a way that is against the site rules, you can report him. Or you can go off and take the bait...

Let's say you beat up someone (let's say you're in a bar and you're drunk, in case you need some background on this hypothetical situation) and later get charged with assault... do you think the judge will exonerate you if you tell him "well, the other guy wasn't even a regular customer, and he purposefully annoyed me"?


The bottom line is, we're all responsible for our own actions, and no one is forcing anyone to break the rules...

First off that analogy is terrible. I think I need a decoder to figure out how it's supposed to relate to this situation. Was Woodruff supposed to be drunk with rage? A multi isn't a regular customer? Maybe you don't mean to make a direct correlation in the example and this situation but I find it to be a confusing example. I don't quite see how it's really supposed to relate to this matter.

Anyhow__ Nobody is looking to excuse anything. But CC is acting like leniency (mitigating factors) should not exist and that is not right.

Also, by your logic, unequal crimes can be punished equally. If a person reacts and says "shut up you f'ing a-hole" to a guy who is intent on berating a person is automatically equally guilty? By your logic, yes. I don't believe that is right though. We're all humans and none of us always behave perfectly always (especially when we are being emotionally baited). There is a significant difference between a person that constantly berates posters and a guy that makes an isolated flame.

Assuming that creating a fun enjoyable forum for all is the objective, then CC should not be hell bent on punishing isolated flames against proven multis with a proven history of trolling and baiting (for the express purpose of getting posters banned). That is counter intuitive as it actually rewards people that engage in premeditated acts of breaking fundamental (major) rules.