Oh, I see.
Personally, I don't think spreading this conversation to other venues will do any good and will only serve to dilute the message.
If someone's really that interested, then they're more than welcome to come here, become a part of the community, read it for themselves, and ask any questions they may have.
The fact is the opposing side is banned for the most part here, so they can't express their viewpoints causing this site to be divided in two.
Now , if both sides had a public meeting somewhere in neutral grounds , we may be able to close this conflict that happened here.
What would MTGS Staff say to this?
I would personally offer my website as a meeting place if both sides agree?
The fact is the opposing side is banned for the most part here, so they can't express their viewpoints causing this site to be divided in two.
Now , if both sides had a public meeting somewhere in neutral grounds , we may be able to close this conflict that happened here.
What would MTGS Staff say to this?
I would personally offer my website as a meeting place if both sides agree?
The fact that anyone sees there as being an opposing sides is what bothers me.
Either way, such meetings are at the discretion of the admins, so I'll leave that to them. If you want a quick response, I suggest you PM or AIM them and suggest it that way.
The fact that anyone sees there as being an opposing sides is what bothers me.
Either way, such meetings are at the discretion of the admins, so I'll leave that to them. If you want a quick response, I suggest you PM or AIM them and suggest it that way.
I get it that the question about who got the raw deal as a consequence of these "misunderstandings" is somewhat taboo. Fair enough.
Another question then: You guys have made it pretty clear that leaks and the diffusion of privileged information is something that causes damage to the community, besides the fact that it is morally reprehensible.
Taking this into account, we can therefore assume that the privacy of current and past members of MTGSalvation is something very important for you guys. For example, you would never dream of going around the Internet, asking the staff of other websites to disclose private information about members of these sites who also happen to be members of MTGS.
I mean you guys would never do something like this, would you?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Why Ban Affinity? Who doesn't like vomiting their hand into Play Turn 2?
For example, you would never dream of going around the Internet, asking the staff of other websites to disclose private information about members of these sites who also happen to be members of MTGS.
I mean you guys would never do something like this, would you?
I have a close working relationship with Jazaray over at MOTL. Because our rules say that if you rip someone off and try to trade here you get banned, I often have to find out why someone was banned there. I do the same on Pojo since I spend about an hour every week on each of those site looking for potential issues (rippers flow up and down stream). We compare notes and help each other track down return rippers. I have also been in touch with the police in a number of states.
Is that what you mean? I feel like you are baiting an answer but I can't tell.
That goes without saying, people are expected to share information if felonies are commited or otherwise innocent people are at harm's risk.
My pondering is more general. For people who have commited no felonies (like ripping people in trades or plotting malicious internet attacks), is there any reasonable expectation that the info they wish to maintain private (like, say other sites registration emails) should not be expected to asked for to third parties by this site's staff?
Is that a reasonable expectation?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Why Ban Affinity? Who doesn't like vomiting their hand into Play Turn 2?
I heard he's doing more than that. he's "pulling out all the stops" as it were
Wouldn't you?
The current "leaker" seems to want to lead people to believe that things are being done to keep people in the dark. Specifically, they are targeting members of the group that have been very vocal over the past month with regards to WCT, Ria, and the like. Gutter members, oddly, do not appear to be receiving the same information that people like I have.
What I did not realize at first was that the larger context involved with my message had been left out. As I touched upon in another thread, that is the problem. I don't think, honestly, that the fact the site has a leaker in a position on the staff is the problem. It appears that the leak that appeared with-in the past month or two has been trying to stir up trouble. This is not so much a "leak" or "source" so much as a person trying to stir the pot and get the **** to rise.
I would be doing to same thing Megs is doing, if that's the case. I am also going to say this much: once they're found, there'd be a sticky'd thread that was visible in EVERY FORUM naming that person. I'd want the users to know that this person wasn't working for their best interest; they were simply interested in causing animosity. That is something that needs to be done, I think.
Megs is going to have a hard time, I think. This person is using gimmick accounts, and he's probably using different e-mail addresses for each in order to further complicate matters. I would have no problems helping out in the search, because as I said I consider this person in particular to be a real threat to the forums.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The above post is the opinion of the poster and is not indicative of any stance taken by the President of the United States, Congress, the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, the Department of the Navy, or the United States Marine Corps."
I would be doing to same thing Megs is doing, if that's the case. I am also going to say this much: once they're found, there'd be a sticky'd thread that was visible in EVERY FORUM naming that person. I'd want the users to know that this person wasn't working for their best interest; they were simply interested in causing animosity. That is something that needs to be done, I think.
Depends on the leaker's motivations. If the person is doing this to troll, giving them more attention (such as by doing what you suggest) would be what they want. You wouldn't want to do that if the person would consider it a badge of honor.
Depends on the leaker's motivations. If the person is doing this to troll, giving them more attention (such as by doing what you suggest) would be what they want. You wouldn't want to do that if the person would consider it a badge of honor.
If the person is doing this to troll, then whoever made them a moderator got hoodwinked hardcore.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The above post is the opinion of the poster and is not indicative of any stance taken by the President of the United States, Congress, the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, the Department of the Navy, or the United States Marine Corps."
Depends on the leaker's motivations. If the person is doing this to troll, giving them more attention (such as by doing what you suggest) would be what they want. You wouldn't want to do that if the person would consider it a badge of honor.
I think it's more misguided idealism than outright trolling. The nature and content of the leaks support that theory, at any rate.
The two are not mutually exclusive, though. And it could have started as idealism and become trolling.
Basically the question I'm posing here is, "In their mind, are they acting against the staff or for the users?" I believe the former would be trolling and the latter would (in this case) be misguided idealism. Basically, I believe that whoever's leaking information isn't doing it for malice's sake, but because they see themselves as fighting for some kind of cause.
This site is already Bad AssForked, power hungry admins who censor anything remotely un-PC, huge drama about nothing, and whiny Timmies everywhere. Brb gonna blow up some lands, suckers
Basically the question I'm posing here is, "In their mind, are they acting against the staff or for the users?" I believe the former would be trolling and the latter would (in this case) be misguided idealism. Basically, I believe that whoever's leaking information isn't doing it for malice's sake, but because they see themselves as fighting for some kind of cause.
Agreed, but IMHO the latter can turn quite easily into the former. The person starts by acting for the users (idealism). This causes the staff to be seen as The Enemy, which leads to acting against the staff (trolling).
The two are not mutually exclusive, though. And it could have started as idealism and become trolling.
At this juncture, who really cares; why quibble over minor and petty distinctions that have no real effect on the now?
Whether or not the truth and the whole truth is divulged is not as important as the trust in the ability of the staff to get this stuff together and the co-operation of the rest of the site. We keep going in circles about this thing, and it's an absolutely revolting affair.
How much of this thing is genuine? Why does this keep stinking like the same stuff - I dunno, the Gutter v. the Staff - over and over again?
Depends on the leaker's motivations. If the person is doing this to troll, giving them more attention (such as by doing what you suggest) would be what they want. You wouldn't want to do that if the person would consider it a badge of honor.
I do agree with this. It seems that the terrorists have won, lol.
Oh the joys of matters self-fulfilling and self-perpetuating.
Hmm, maybe it was just someone speculating about it then. Around 2009 I think. I remember it was quite a surprise to me that it could be done and was the first thing that I thought of when I saw the suggestion.
"It's been done before, but it really isn't appropriate here."
I thought.
Oh well, whatever. I was just trying to point out it wasn't an original idea is all.
It came out in the Gloves Thread that there were members on this site who were included in the "Bad User" Group who would be randomly signed out and other such Nonsense.
Rin~(?) Denied knowing how anyone was included into that group and claimed that the "Bad User" Group was wiped.
I guess OP wants it to be 'keyworded' like "dies" was. What word would you replace ETB with though?
When Aegis Angel is born?
When Huntmaster of the Fells arrives?
When Kitchen Sphinx lands?
When Faerie Imposter busts in?
When Dread Cacodemon pops in?
When Malfegor shows up?
The fact is the opposing side is banned for the most part here, so they can't express their viewpoints causing this site to be divided in two.
Now , if both sides had a public meeting somewhere in neutral grounds , we may be able to close this conflict that happened here.
What would MTGS Staff say to this?
I would personally offer my website as a meeting place if both sides agree?
Facebook MTG Anti-scam rep
Former Izzet clan Rep.
[Official Tech Geek of [The Crafters]
admin of[SIZE=3] MAGECRAFT:[/SIZE][SIZE=3] a forum for all from Magic to Pokemon!
The fact that anyone sees there as being an opposing sides is what bothers me.
Either way, such meetings are at the discretion of the admins, so I'll leave that to them. If you want a quick response, I suggest you PM or AIM them and suggest it that way.
AIMed Nai
Facebook MTG Anti-scam rep
Former Izzet clan Rep.
[Official Tech Geek of [The Crafters]
admin of[SIZE=3] MAGECRAFT:[/SIZE][SIZE=3] a forum for all from Magic to Pokemon!
Infraction for spam.
-:ER:
Another question then: You guys have made it pretty clear that leaks and the diffusion of privileged information is something that causes damage to the community, besides the fact that it is morally reprehensible.
Taking this into account, we can therefore assume that the privacy of current and past members of MTGSalvation is something very important for you guys. For example, you would never dream of going around the Internet, asking the staff of other websites to disclose private information about members of these sites who also happen to be members of MTGS.
I mean you guys would never do something like this, would you?
I have a close working relationship with Jazaray over at MOTL. Because our rules say that if you rip someone off and try to trade here you get banned, I often have to find out why someone was banned there. I do the same on Pojo since I spend about an hour every week on each of those site looking for potential issues (rippers flow up and down stream). We compare notes and help each other track down return rippers. I have also been in touch with the police in a number of states.
Is that what you mean? I feel like you are baiting an answer but I can't tell.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
My pondering is more general. For people who have commited no felonies (like ripping people in trades or plotting malicious internet attacks), is there any reasonable expectation that the info they wish to maintain private (like, say other sites registration emails) should not be expected to asked for to third parties by this site's staff?
Is that a reasonable expectation?
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
I heard he's doing more than that. he's "pulling out all the stops" as it were
Wouldn't you?
The current "leaker" seems to want to lead people to believe that things are being done to keep people in the dark. Specifically, they are targeting members of the group that have been very vocal over the past month with regards to WCT, Ria, and the like. Gutter members, oddly, do not appear to be receiving the same information that people like I have.
What I did not realize at first was that the larger context involved with my message had been left out. As I touched upon in another thread, that is the problem. I don't think, honestly, that the fact the site has a leaker in a position on the staff is the problem. It appears that the leak that appeared with-in the past month or two has been trying to stir up trouble. This is not so much a "leak" or "source" so much as a person trying to stir the pot and get the **** to rise.
I would be doing to same thing Megs is doing, if that's the case. I am also going to say this much: once they're found, there'd be a sticky'd thread that was visible in EVERY FORUM naming that person. I'd want the users to know that this person wasn't working for their best interest; they were simply interested in causing animosity. That is something that needs to be done, I think.
Megs is going to have a hard time, I think. This person is using gimmick accounts, and he's probably using different e-mail addresses for each in order to further complicate matters. I would have no problems helping out in the search, because as I said I consider this person in particular to be a real threat to the forums.
Captain, United States Marines
"Peace through superior firepower."
Depends on the leaker's motivations. If the person is doing this to troll, giving them more attention (such as by doing what you suggest) would be what they want. You wouldn't want to do that if the person would consider it a badge of honor.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
If the person is doing this to troll, then whoever made them a moderator got hoodwinked hardcore.
Captain, United States Marines
"Peace through superior firepower."
I think it's more misguided idealism than outright trolling. The nature and content of the leaks support that theory, at any rate.
The two are not mutually exclusive, though. And it could have started as idealism and become trolling.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
Basically the question I'm posing here is, "In their mind, are they acting against the staff or for the users?" I believe the former would be trolling and the latter would (in this case) be misguided idealism. Basically, I believe that whoever's leaking information isn't doing it for malice's sake, but because they see themselves as fighting for some kind of cause.
Agreed, but IMHO the latter can turn quite easily into the former. The person starts by acting for the users (idealism). This causes the staff to be seen as The Enemy, which leads to acting against the staff (trolling).
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
At this juncture, who really cares; why quibble over minor and petty distinctions that have no real effect on the now?
Whether or not the truth and the whole truth is divulged is not as important as the trust in the ability of the staff to get this stuff together and the co-operation of the rest of the site. We keep going in circles about this thing, and it's an absolutely revolting affair.
How much of this thing is genuine? Why does this keep stinking like the same stuff - I dunno, the Gutter v. the Staff - over and over again?
I do agree with this. It seems that the terrorists have won, lol.
Oh the joys of matters self-fulfilling and self-perpetuating.
It came out in the Gloves Thread that there were members on this site who were included in the "Bad User" Group who would be randomly signed out and other such Nonsense.
Rin~(?) Denied knowing how anyone was included into that group and claimed that the "Bad User" Group was wiped.
[Mafia Stats] Mafia MVP: 1/3 Basic #29,Co-[CCMV]
[Mafia Stats] Mafia MVP: 1/3 Basic #29,Co-[CCMV]
Regarding?
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
The Curse people (none of whom have accounts here on sally).
The Curse Head Honcho and The Liaison that Nai refers to.
Please.
[Mafia Stats] Mafia MVP: 1/3 Basic #29,Co-[CCMV]