Re: FREDVIII [Permanent Website Vacation]
Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 11:36 am
the.killing.44 wrote:lancehoch wrote:Now he could not stop harassing other members of the community in the last vestige of interaction he still had accessible to him. Therefore, he was sent on his way.
But that is the thing: "harassing other members," as you put it, is NOT a bannable offense in this "last vestige." I agree with what you said, how the previous bans and warnings should indeed place an effect on how something is taken. And if something had happened over PM, or in the forum (I know he was banned), then the warning should definitely affect the decision of the mods/admins. But in this case, I think that you cannot let previous warnings effect occurrences out of context. You said, "the action must also be taken in context of the previous actions." But you most definitely took it OUT of context here, by stating that one form of crime that infringes the rules can impact how a LEGAL action is viewed. You've let the context shape, and even CREATE the crime — his action was NOT against the rules, whether he was "angelic" or not.
Which leads me to my next point: The Community Guidelines are wrong. Or rather, posters — users and admins alike — do not use the Guidelines as they should. The Guidelines state:• Banter and some trash talking IS allowed in the Game Chats, so don't waste time complaining about that.
• You may not be used to hearing or reading those "four-letter words", but some people do and will use them. This isn't a reason to open a complaint about the player; just kindly ask them to stop or ignore them.
Now while in making your decision to ban Fred you totally disregarded the very guidelines that were quoted and have been used in the EXACT same situation, each of which to a DIFFERENT conclusion, that isn't my point. You can see they expressly state:This isn't a reason to open a complaint about the player; just kindly ask them to stop or ignore them.
Well guess what: people do complain about it. And, exactly against the Guidelines, they are both ENCOURAGED to open a complaint, and are even REWARDED for it. In fact, I linked those threads also as examples of how everyone goes AGAINST the Guidelines and posts complaints about game chat. And now, someone gets banned over that! Something outlined as a non-bannable offense in the Community Guidelines.
So I also suggest that we change the Community Guidelines to state that either is in indeed okay to report people and how something is going to come of it! It is so ironic that people violate the rules and yet are rewarded for it, especially in this case.
I would like to see a mod or admin step up and tell me how Fred's ban because of (MILD) game chat abuse was warranted. And you cannot give me that B.S. how his "previous actions were taken into account," because just because someone was banned from other "vestiges of communication" does NOT mean that their past infractions can CHANGE the rules! And if the previous sentence is indeed true, I can't care to see how a society where doing something against the law means a perfectly legal action with no reason for punishment turns into one leading to the harshest and FINAL punishment.
.44
Yes, it doesn't seem to make much sense does it?
Maybe CC will let him start a third account, wait until he doesn't actually break a rule (for as you admirably pointed out he hasn't actually broken any rules in this case) and then ban him again.
Slightly interesting that a foundry assistant (at least a minor part of team CC) is now openly disagreeing with the establishment on this.
or something ?