Where in the World is pimpdave?

[Army of GOD]

Can b& members send in e-tickets?

If so, you should allow those who have >3 month bans to ask to review their cases. Thus, permabanders and 6 monthbanders (isn't General Stonedbacon on a 6 monther still too?) can be readmitted, but this will also allow you to only review cases of members who are actively looking to get back to the fora.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I just want to be the first to say:

FREE MUSTARD !!!

I mean we know that's where it was going

Anywho, you guys are of course right about it being ridiculous to keep people on bans longer than the max, but as Bogan says, changing them would mean actually admitting the mods were wrong
Do you not realise what chaos this forum would descend into if the authoritah of our benevolent overlords were dented in such a manner?

[Night Strike]

I'm pretty sure there's a logical step missing between the mods/admins lowering the max ban time and admitting mistakes about past users being banned.

Lowering the max ban time --/--> past bans were mistakes.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I'm pretty sure there's a logical step missing between the mods/admins lowering the max ban time and admitting mistakes about past users being banned.

Lowering the max ban time --/--> past bans were mistakes.

It wasn't a mistake to ban them, it was a mistake to ban them for more than 3 months. otherwise you wouldn't have reduced the limit.

[Night Strike]

I'm pretty sure there's a logical step missing between the mods/admins lowering the max ban time and admitting mistakes about past users being banned.

Lowering the max ban time --/--> past bans were mistakes.

It wasn't a mistake to ban them, it was a mistake to ban them for more than 3 months. otherwise you wouldn't have reduced the limit.

I did not lower the limit. I was against lowering it from perma to 6 months, muchless 6 months to 3 months.

When those individuals violated the rules, the rules stated that after so many infractions they would be permabanned (or 6 months). Now the rules state that after so many violations, they get a maximum of 3 months. They knew the rules/punishments then and still chose to violate them, so they still get their punishments.

[InkL0sed]

I'm pretty sure there's a logical step missing between the mods/admins lowering the max ban time and admitting mistakes about past users being banned.

Lowering the max ban time --/--> past bans were mistakes.

It wasn't a mistake to ban them, it was a mistake to ban them for more than 3 months. otherwise you wouldn't have reduced the limit.

I did not lower the limit. I was against lowering it from perma to 6 months, muchless 6 months to 3 months.

Honestly, who gives a f*ck what you think? We're arguing about the consistency of the rules here.

When those individuals violated the rules, the rules stated that after so many infractions they would be permabanned (or 6 months). Now the rules state that after so many violations, they get a maximum of 3 months. They knew the rules/punishments then and still chose to violate them, so they still get their punishments.

And yet the rules are the same. To return to the death penalty analogy, if the death penalty was abolished tomorrow, do you think we'd still execute the people on death row? Of course not - because abolishing the death penalty would mean we no longer think it's a good idea to execute people.

If we think it's not a good idea to execute people, why should we continue to do so merely because the people on death row committed their crime too long ago?

[Night Strike]

When those individuals violated the rules, the rules stated that after so many infractions they would be permabanned (or 6 months). Now the rules state that after so many violations, they get a maximum of 3 months. They knew the rules/punishments then and still chose to violate them, so they still get their punishments.

And yet the rules are the same. To return to the death penalty analogy, if the death penalty was abolished tomorrow, do you think we'd still execute the people on death row? Of course not - because abolishing the death penalty would mean we no longer think it's a good idea to execute people.

If we think it's not a good idea to execute people, why should we continue to do so merely because the people on death row committed their crime too long ago?

You can't go back and raise the dead for those that were killed before the death penalty was removed from their state/country.

[Army of GOD]

When those individuals violated the rules, the rules stated that after so many infractions they would be permabanned (or 6 months). Now the rules state that after so many violations, they get a maximum of 3 months. They knew the rules/punishments then and still chose to violate them, so they still get their punishments.

And yet the rules are the same. To return to the death penalty analogy, if the death penalty was abolished tomorrow, do you think we'd still execute the people on death row? Of course not - because abolishing the death penalty would mean we no longer think it's a good idea to execute people.

If we think it's not a good idea to execute people, why should we continue to do so merely because the people on death row committed their crime too long ago?

You can't go back and raise the dead for those that were killed before the death penalty was removed from their state/country.

What the f*ck are you even talking about?

Let's use a less exploitable analogy: let's say the United States declared that it wouldn't sentence more than 10 years of prison to anyone. Do you think those that still have to serve 10 years in prison deserve to have their sentences reduced due to the new law? Or are you going to avoid the question by saying something completely and utterly retarded?

[Night Strike]

When those individuals violated the rules, the rules stated that after so many infractions they would be permabanned (or 6 months). Now the rules state that after so many violations, they get a maximum of 3 months. They knew the rules/punishments then and still chose to violate them, so they still get their punishments.

And yet the rules are the same. To return to the death penalty analogy, if the death penalty was abolished tomorrow, do you think we'd still execute the people on death row? Of course not - because abolishing the death penalty would mean we no longer think it's a good idea to execute people.

If we think it's not a good idea to execute people, why should we continue to do so merely because the people on death row committed their crime too long ago?

You can't go back and raise the dead for those that were killed before the death penalty was removed from their state/country.

What the f*ck are you even talking about?

Let's use a less exploitable analogy: let's say the United States declared that it wouldn't sentence more than 10 years of prison to anyone. Do you think those that still have to serve 10 years in prison deserve to have their sentences reduced due to the new law? Or are you going to avoid the question by saying something completely and utterly retarded?

I didn't bring up the death penalty analogy: I was just demonstrating why it's wrong.

[Army of GOD]

Ok, so you'll avoid my question.

Does any non-troll who is in favor of keeping current b& in tact want to respond to either analogy?

[Night Strike]

I think that just like how you can't punish a past crime under a new law, you should not be able to punish someone under new rules for a past offense.

[Ace Rimmer]

I think that just like how you can't punish a past crime under a new law, you should not be able to punish someone under new rules for a past offense.

The difference in this case is that the rules were found to be too strict/unfair, so they were lessened.

Here's a better analogy: Should southern plantation owners have been allowed to keep their slaves, since when they bought them it was the law?

I understand what you are trying to say (You chose to accept the consequences when you broke the rules, regardless of whether or not the rules have changed). However, many people do not believe this is how it should work on this forum.

[Army of GOD]

I think that just like how you can't punish a past crime under a new law, you should not be able to punish someone under new rules for a past offense.

The difference in this case is that the rules were found to be too strict/unfair, so they were lessened.

Here's a better analogy: Should southern plantation owners have been allowed to keep their slaves, since when they bought them it was the law?

I understand what you are trying to say (You chose to accept the consequences when you broke the rules, regardless of whether or not the rules have changed). However, many people do not believe this is how it should work on this forum.

You know he's going to respond with something along the lines of "well, the slaves shouldn't have been black" or something stupid like that.

[whitestazn88]

the slaves shouldn't have been black, though... (not meant to be construed as bigotry by the forum moderators, this is simply a joke that is related to the previous comment, meant to humor other members of the forum)

[rdsrds2120]

If every time a rule was changed or altered and we decided to backtrack them, things would go extremely hectic. Here's an analogy close to CC:

When the new rules for Speed Tournaments were procured, should DJ Teflon had have to go back and find every speed tournament that didn't meet the new requirements and punish accordingly? No, of course not.

When we started being a little more strict about the parody threads, should we go back and find every parody thread and discipline accordingly? Of course not.

Everyone on a 6-month ban is going to be released from it, and they were assigned it because those were the rules at the time. For me, that is that. However, I do think that giving the permabanned people a case review would be ok, since they will never be released automatically, but the people on 6-month bans will be.

-rd

[Neoteny]

FREE MUSTARD!!!

[Army of GOD]

GET DANCING MUSTARDS ASS ON HERE

[Neoteny]

Yes.

[InkL0sed]

If every time a rule was changed or altered and we decided to backtrack them, things would go extremely hectic. Here's an analogy close to CC:

Yeah, because rule changes happen, like, all the time around here.

When the new rules for Speed Tournaments were procured, should DJ Teflon had have to go back and find every speed tournament that didn't meet the new requirements and punish accordingly? No, of course not.

When we started being a little more strict about the parody threads, should we go back and find every parody thread and discipline accordingly? Of course not.

Everyone on a 6-month ban is going to be released from it, and they were assigned it because those were the rules at the time. For me, that is that. However, I do think that giving the permabanned people a case review would be ok, since they will never be released automatically, but the people on 6-month bans will be.

-rd

These are bad analogies; they're the reverse of what's happening here. That is, they're a case of the rules changing so that something which was previously permitted is now against the rules. Of course you can't punish people who did something that was perfectly OK at the time. However, if you decide that a certain punishment is unfair, there is absolutely no need to continue punishing people in that way simply because you said you would once.

Your last point about the distinction between 6 month bans and permabans is also a bad one. Your argument boils down to this: that it's OK that something you've decided is unfair is happening to some people only because it ends. But why perpetuate unfairness for any longer than it has to? The fact that you think permabans should be reviewed is basically a concession that you think these bans are unfair; so why only "review" permanent bans, and not 6-month ones? It's an argument from laziness. For that matter, why is there need for a review at all? If you're never going to ban someone for more than 3 months again, why is there a need for review?

Look, before you or any mod answers me again, all I ask is for you to seriously think about what I'm saying. I'm not demanding an immediate response; in fact, I'd prefer you sit back and actually think about what's going on here. Mods tend to get on the defensive very quickly when we question their decisions. It's understandable as a gut reaction to immediately defend a current policy, especially when people are demanding answers now. But I don't think you guys are being unfair out of spitefulness or something; I think you simply haven't thought about what to do with previous cases. So please, just think about it. Take your time. Actually try to see it from my perspective, and the perspective from people who've been banned for 6 months. Then answer.

[Dukasaur]

tgd, if you're in the know... then why is he still gone?

I don't understand the question. Why would he be back if I was in the know? I mean, I just told you he wasn't banned for the Tea Party stuff. Do you not believe me? Do you want to know what he was banned for?

Yes.

[BigBallinStalin]

If every time a rule was changed or altered and we decided to backtrack them, things would go extremely hectic. Here's an analogy close to CC:

Yeah, because rule changes happen, like, all the time around here.

When the new rules for Speed Tournaments were procured, should DJ Teflon had have to go back and find every speed tournament that didn't meet the new requirements and punish accordingly? No, of course not.

When we started being a little more strict about the parody threads, should we go back and find every parody thread and discipline accordingly? Of course not.

Everyone on a 6-month ban is going to be released from it, and they were assigned it because those were the rules at the time. For me, that is that. However, I do think that giving the permabanned people a case review would be ok, since they will never be released automatically, but the people on 6-month bans will be.

-rd

These are bad analogies; they're the reverse of what's happening here. That is, they're a case of the rules changing so that something which was previously permitted is now against the rules. Of course you can't punish people who did something that was perfectly OK at the time. However, if you decide that a certain punishment is unfair, there is absolutely no need to continue punishing people in that way simply because you said you would once.

Your last point about the distinction between 6 month bans and permabans is also a bad one. Your argument boils down to this: that it's OK that something you've decided is unfair is happening to some people only because it ends. But why perpetuate unfairness for any longer than it has to? The fact that you think permabans should be reviewed is basically a concession that you think these bans are unfair; so why only "review" permanent bans, and not 6-month ones? It's an argument from laziness. For that matter, why is there need for a review at all? If you're never going to ban someone for more than 3 months again, why is there a need for review?

Look, before you or any mod answers me again, all I ask is for you to seriously think about what I'm saying. I'm not demanding an immediate response; in fact, I'd prefer you sit back and actually think about what's going on here. Mods tend to get on the defensive very quickly when we question their decisions. It's understandable as a gut reaction to immediately defend a current policy, especially when people are demanding answers now. But I don't think you guys are being unfair out of spitefulness or something; I think you simply haven't thought about what to do with previous cases. So please, just think about it. Take your time. Actually try to see it from my perspective, and the perspective from people who've been banned for 6 months. Then answer.

<waits 5 seconds>

NOPE, UR WRONG!!!

[john9blue]

I just want to be the first to say:

FREE MUSTARD !!!

today's cc forums couldn't handle mustard.

[thegreekdog]

Question (and I suppose a point) - if the moderators who imposed Rule X are no longer moderators and the new moderators think Rule X is a bad rule and change it, how does anyone look bad?

[Army of GOD]

Question (and I suppose a point) - if the moderators who imposed Rule X are no longer moderators and the new moderators think Rule X is a bad rule and change it, how does anyone look bad?

Because the new mods aren't willing to lower the sentences of those who were affected by Rule X. If they really believe there shouldn't be a ban of more than 3 months, then they should lower all outstanding bans of more than 3 months to exactly 3 months.

[MeDeFe]

I just want to be the first to say:

FREE MUSTARD !!!

today's cc forums couldn't handle mustard.

I'm afraid you're right.