Fred, who else will stand up for whats right?

[Snorri1234]

It seems to me like he's getting punished twice for the his past offenses. The first time through he got his, but since he had them on his record, they use it to justify his permaban along with something not even really against the rules (swearing in game chat) as if he had done those things again.
Didn't know the guy or the the situation with him, but that's what it looks like to me.

That's clearly the case, yes. But I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing, when applied appropriately. Past actions SHOULD have an impact on punishments, in my opinion. I do tend to think they may have been mis-applied in this case.

They are always mis-applied because this permanent record thing is just silly. It should be that every type of "offense" has it's own guideline. Swearing should never ever result in anything over a three-day ban except when it's a continuous disruptive force.

[Strife]

Freedom of speech is forfeit on private property. The law, learn it, love it, deal with it.

[azezzo]

And to stay on point...I recall Andy providing several factors influencing the decision to ban, and foul language in chat was not the sole reason for permanent dismissal.

cumulative banning needs to be addressed. Fred did several things that were questionable, and i do not defend them. but to toss him for foul language in game chat, and to state that it was the final straw to break the camel's back is a joke. great, he was warned for language ONE TIME. so why not punish him for THAT offense and not roll it up into a bunch of other unrelated offenses? witch hunt, period. if what FRED did was such a horrible offense, then why in the hell is codeblue still permitted to post within game chat? the solution was simple. if FRED's transgression was to the level of truly being beyond offensive and beyond being warned against, suspend his ability to post in game chat. CC can do this. why won't CC do this in this case? rolling all of FRED's offenses into one big ball and then kicking him for the smallest of all of these rule infractions makes the admins/mod squad look laughable. this should be rethought, revisited, and rescinded.-0

oh shit, I really hate to say it,......................................but I agree with Owenshooter

[Woodruff]

It seems to me like he's getting punished twice for the his past offenses. The first time through he got his, but since he had them on his record, they use it to justify his permaban along with something not even really against the rules (swearing in game chat) as if he had done those things again.

Didn't know the guy or the the situation with him, but that's what it looks like to me.

That's clearly the case, yes. But I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing, when applied appropriately. Past actions SHOULD have an impact on punishments, in my opinion. I do tend to think they may have been mis-applied in this case.

They are always mis-applied because this permanent record thing is just silly.

I disagree with you very strongly.

It should be that every type of "offense" has it's own guideline.

I don't think that's necessarily a bad idea, but I don't think it's necessary either. There are actions that are very clearly minor in nature and I don't think it causes a real problem to have them grouped together.

Swearing should never ever result in anything over a three-day ban except when it's a continuous disruptive force.

That is, of course, a personal opinion.

[Snorri1234]

I don't think that's necessarily a bad idea, but I don't think it's necessary either. There are actions that are very clearly minor in nature and I don't think it causes a real problem to have them grouped together.

Well I don't mean some offenses shouldn't be grouped together, but that the severity of an action should be judged first outside of the record and then within.

Fred did something which wasn't even an offense according to the rules and ended up banned from the site entirely. They let his record influence their view of the severity of the "offense", which strikes me as wrong.

Swearing should never ever result in anything over a three-day ban except when it's a continuous disruptive force.

That is, of course, a personal opinion.

Well yes, what isnt?

[Fircoal]

i dont think foul language is a reason for a perma-ban, everyone uses foul language at time, even this knob above me who just loves to spam, i think CC should hold a vote between all the users to see if FRED is allowed back or not. then we will really see the effect of bad language in the community......nothing!

Popularity of an individual should NEVER be the reason for keeping someone on the site, in my personal opinion. And for most people, that's unfortunately exactly what this would come down to (there would be a few who would vote on the reason for the ban itself, of course).

Why should it never be the reason? And on the site or forums. If for the forums, if the majority of the forum likes the said person, then they aren't "bothering" the community. So if they aren't bothersome to the community, why ban them?

And yes I believe the ban was unfair in this situation and in most. No, I don't even know Fred so don't think I'm doing this from popularity.

[Woodruff]

i dont think foul language is a reason for a perma-ban, everyone uses foul language at time, even this knob above me who just loves to spam, i think CC should hold a vote between all the users to see if FRED is allowed back or not. then we will really see the effect of bad language in the community......nothing!

Popularity of an individual should NEVER be the reason for keeping someone on the site, in my personal opinion. And for most people, that's unfortunately exactly what this would come down to (there would be a few who would vote on the reason for the ban itself, of course).

Why should it never be the reason? And on the site or forums. If for the forums, if the majority of the forum likes the said person, then they aren't "bothering" the community. So if they aren't bothersome to the community, why ban them?

Because "popularity" leads to one set of thinking and mob rule. Those who side with a particular individual routinely in discussions are very likely to feel a kinship with that individual and not want to see them be punished. It wouldn't happen with everyone, of course...because some folks are able to rationally view things, but that is human nature.

[Thezzaruz]

Swearing should never ever result in anything over a three-day ban except when it's a continuous disruptive force.

But wasn't that what fred was judged to be???

If for the forums, if the majority of the forum likes the said person, then they aren't "bothering" the community. So if they aren't bothersome to the community, why ban them?

That doesn't really work though. It's very possible to be disruptive to a small part of the community, and hence worthy of a ban, while also being popular and non-disruptive towards the majority.

[owenshooter]

Swearing should never ever result in anything over a three-day ban except when it's a continuous disruptive force.

But wasn't that what fred was judged to be???

he was busted once for swearing in game chat. it was the cumulative snowball of unrelated offenses that "got him." so, by committing the LEAST of any of the offenses he had been in trouble for, he was suddenly beyond the pale and needed to be perma-killed. if you want to see a user that is a continuous disruptive force through harassment and abusive language in game chat and other means, look up codeblue in C&A. if his transgressions have yet to merit a ban for language, how can fred take the dirt nap for language? the cumulative total is the problem, period. and it is being addressed in suggestions:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=91722

the change in the punishment guidelines without discussion or notification is what i'm at odds with. somehow, changing the bigotry guidelines caused a change in all the punishment levels. if that is the case, then all the violations should be split into the appropriate categories, and for each transgression within the same category, you take a step up the ladder. what is going on now is just a joke and needs to be addressed instead of ignored by the admins (prime stated he will no longer take part in the debate). when pressed, the admins listened to reason and helped write new bigotry guidelines. why can't the same be done in this instance. the current system is not fair, is not working, and is hurting the community.-0

[Thezzaruz]

he was busted once for swearing in game chat.

He was busted for swearing in many game chats and that coupled with all previous offences seemed to me to fit quite well into the "continuous disruptive force" that Snorri called. That said I'm not sure it was right to actually ban fred the way it happened but that's a whole other discussion.

if that is the case, then all the violations should be split into the appropriate categories, and for each transgression within the same category, you take a step up the ladder.

Not sure I agree. Some separation would probably be a good thing but someone that frequently breaks one rule don't really deserve a clean slate on other rule and eventually all offences has to be bannable ones if repeated enough times.

[Johnny Rockets]

This would sum it up appropriately:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0mSGCTkH2w



Thank you, Jim Carey


Johnny

[Snorri1234]

he was busted once for swearing in game chat.

He was busted for swearing in many game chats and that coupled with all previous offences seemed to me to fit quite well into the "continuous disruptive force" that Snorri called.

But that's my point, it shouldn't be coupled with previous offences which are unrelated. If he had purposefully and continuously trolled games (particularly those he isn't in) after receiving warnings and a ban or two for it then I would agree with banning him completely.

[jammyjames]

Freedom of speech is forfeit on private property. The law, learn it, love it, deal with it.

negativity towards Fred will not be accepted within this thread... now f*ck off and go play with your toys

[stahrgazer]

he was busted once for swearing in game chat.

He was busted for swearing in many game chats and that coupled with all previous offences seemed to me to fit quite well into the "continuous disruptive force" that Snorri called. That said I'm not sure it was right to actually ban fred the way it happened but that's a whole other discussion.

Someone was busted for swearing in game chat? I demand a re-look at the C&A I posted for ppl swearing at me in game chat, then.

Not that I think swearing should be a bannable offense, ever! I just think there'd be less overt verbal offense if mods would at least warn for a language offense if someone is offended enough to write a C&A on it. Even if that just means a thousand warnings and an occasional day vaca for "continuous swearing forces."

[King_Herpes]

If we don't all voice our concerns about the banning of fred over some nonsense excuses then who will stand up for us when we get banned?
If we can now be banned over curses in game chat, then I think any of the regulars here can receive a permanent website vacation whenever the mods or admins chose.
I also have to question the legality of such a website operating in the united states where freedom of speech is guaranteed to all citizens.

International, national and regional standards recognize that freedom of speech, as one form of freedom of expression, applies to any medium, including the Internet.

When they came for Fred, no one stood up because it didn't affect them.
When they came for codeblue, no one stood up because it didn't affect them.
When they came for stunna, no one stood up because it didn't affect them.
When they came for bruceswar, no one stood up because it didn't affect them.
When they came for aeromate, no one stood up because it didn't affect them.
When they came for demonfork, no one stood up because it didn't affect them.
And when they came for me, no one stood up, because there was no one left.

This site is here because of paying customers like you and me.
I feel we all have a say in any abuses of power the site mods or admins may attempt to pull on us as a community.

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

[stahrgazer]

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

Nah, Margaret Mitchell wrote it; Rhett merely said it.

[King_Herpes]

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

Nah, Margaret Mitchell wrote it; Rhett merely said it.

Touche, if you could just be so kind as to excuse my little butt on that one. Much obliged m' lady.

[stahrgazer]

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

Nah, Margaret Mitchell wrote it; Rhett merely said it.

Touche, if you could just be so kind as to excuse my little butt on that one. Much obliged m' lady.

only if i get to pinch it, too