jpcloet wrote:My question is whether Owen was asked via pm to "cut out the passive aggressive behaviour".
Valid Point, but again wouldn't that fall under a warning and under the current escalating system it get's bumped straight up to the level he was sitting at? I haven't actually been involved in taking any of those types of disciplinary action but I would assume that unofficial warnings are originally given, but then when it comes time to give the official warning (Which is what would perhaps be the best action taken here?), because of owen's past spreadsheet here it unfortunately went straight up to ban-worthiness?
jbrettlip wrote:I was just trying to explain why it was a 3 month ban. I disagree with the ban, and the fact that the escalating system has no "roll-off" period for infractions. They are two separate issues, but if it weren't for this made up ban, the escalating system would not be discussed. I would make a thread about revising the escalating system, but since I already posted here, I guess I would get banned for posting the same thing in two places.
Idk, but if the escalation system is a worry then it is worth discussing, it if it comes to a point where something would need to be done about it then it could graduate to a point where a suggestion could be made. I remember when I was in chatters where we perhaps had to make a similar call to ban AoG (for doing the same triangle spamming thing that becomes so irritating after a while). The act in itself perhaps wouldn't be worthy of it, but the repetitive past occurrences made it necessary.
With regards to the specifics of owen's case I'm perhaps not the best judge of whether it was right or wrong, and it's the reason I'm tending to be more wary of taking full-fledged 'moderating' roles since it seems to be such a fiery environment in attempting to make these tough calls, but I still do think his actions were a bit excessive (^and perhaps the punishment as well?) and put alongside the owen-istic attitude that tends to grate on you (Can anyone truly say he could attempt to fly a bit more under the radar then challenging everything he can think of - from avy's to sigs to general responses) then I can see why something still needed to be done.
If Owen was truly concerned with the premium issue, then why not contact sam personally to ask why that was the case and why it can't be improved? (But from what sam said earlier it never seems to work with him?) It may just be me, but can everyone else also say that owen doesn't try deliberately to be a hotbed of dissent? (as this dibbun character seems to be going on, it's not really a safe place to be even if you feel it's 'cool' to be bad...) As has been mentioned, there are ways and then there are
ways, and owen seems to tend to take the latter and worse routes.
All that being said however, if you guys truly believe that owens been punished unduly then there are still ways to appeal it, whether the much maligned e-ticket system, or as we're doing here with discussing the pro's and con's from both sides (since there is precedence for this having overturned rulings) - and as you can see there hasn't been any locking (yet) of this line of discussion to prevent reaching a satisfactory conclusion.
What I've disliked seeing however, is that there are calls from team cc to respond to this incident, and then in the same breath you berate (dare I say flame?) Night, who even as an outsider to the disciplinary action taken, put down why he believed the case was correct...
I would think everything in that vein would just prevent a legitimate appeal being heard and put backs-up
