"The excuse"? Hannes was completely impossible to reach for months and months at a time, which was the source of a lot of frustration last year - that the owner literally couldn't be contacted.
this isn't really about the gutter, its about Condoms. Since when is reductio ad absurdum considered "not constructive"? Are we only allowing MTGS-Approved Forms of Debate now?
this isn't really about the gutter, its about Condoms. Since when is reductio ad absurdum considered "not constructive"? Are we only allowing MTGS-Approved Forms of Debate now?
Did anyone say that? I think they said that poisoning the well and making numerous posts before anyone official could respond was not constructive. You know, insulting people and spamming, more or less. Those things are always against the rules. Now, whether or not you think he was spamming or insulting doesn't matter, the staff thinks it was, there is the justification.
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?
Did anyone say that? I think they said that poisoning the well and making numerous posts before anyone official could respond was not constructive. You know, insulting people and spamming, more or less. Those things are always against the rules. Now, whether or not you think he was spamming or insulting doesn't matter, the staff thinks it was, there is the justification.
Where have you been? They just spent a page of the thread arguing about DTR and the Gutter. Checkbox tried to move it back to Condoms. He said he didn't think the posts made by Condoms were non-constructive. One of the points of CI involves people discussing mod action and questioning justifications. This isn't a magical Christmas land where if the mods say it's offensive it actually is offensive. That's why we're here talking about it. For example, Nai explained in some detail why he thought Condoms's posts weren't helpful, opening up the issue to scrutiny and discussion.
Where have you been? They just spent a page of the thread arguing about DTR and the Gutter. Checkbox tried to move it back to Condoms. He said he didn't think the posts made by Condoms were non-constructive. One of the points of CI involves people discussing mod action and questioning justifications. This isn't a magical Christmas land where if the mods say it's offensive it actually is offensive. That's why we're here talking about it. For example, Nai explained in some detail why he thought Condoms's posts weren't helpful, opening up the issue to scrutiny and discussion.
I've been lurking. And yes, Nai explained that, to which Checkbox responded with what amounts to "nyeh nyeh you're wrong [insert thinly veiled jab at mtgs staff here]"
This isn't a magical Christmas land where if the mods say it's offensive it actually is offensive. That's why we're here talking about it.
And actually, yes it is. There is a forum for discussion of whether the mods are right, but until that discussion is concluded, what the mods said is canon.
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?
I'd like to jump in to this discussion to get my 2 cents in. About 3 weeks ago I logged on and found out that I had been suspended from the casual forums for 2 weeks. I realize that this discussion is centered around the CI bans/suspensions but my case is similar enough that I felt as though it would be appropriate to chime in. Anyways, I wan't given a suspension because I had accumulated infractions or whatever. Rather, I too was suspended for fuzzy "we're not happy with your overall demeanor" reasons. Let me start off by saying that I'm not under the illusion that everything that I say would pass muster for a Ned Flanders. I say some controversial things and I definitely engage in direct debates with other posters. Because of this I often find myself on the receiving end of an infraction and so my relationship with the mods is tenuous at best. As such, I wasn't exactly surprised when this transpired, but it still left a bit of a weird taste in my mouth.
For starters, it's difficult to challenge a punishment with no associated crime. If you're trying to appeal your innocence to a judge then it helps if you know what you're being convicted of. Using an aggressive tone or saying something controversial won't get you arrested in the real world so it's not exactly clear how we're supposed to tackle the situation when it happens online. It's straight-up discipline with no correlating transgression and that goes against what most people consider to be a fair process. I realize that special measures are sometimes taken in an attempt to thwart terrorist activity but I mean I don't think that anyone here could argue that people like us are terrorists to the site. It just irks me that we're told to reference our infracted posts when there aren't any to begin with. It feels as though we're being punished for no reason and given an impossible-to-complete appeal process. We could easily still be in the wrong, I accept that, but I personally believe that the MTG Staff is also in the wrong on this matter as well. And yes, I don't think for the second that the conclusions are mutually exclusive.
Anyways, I'm personally under the impression that this is their attempt at a "scared straight" program. Our trespasses aren't severe enough to warrant site-wide bans or suspensions but I feel as though it's an attempt to put the "fear of God" in us in the hopes that we'll reform or rethink our actions in the future. Who knows, maybe you can save us before we get ourselves banned for real. If that's your intent, be public about it. Put it in the rules and let people know that it's realistic possibility. If it's happened to me and if it's happened to the users named in this thread then I'm betting that it's happened before and it'll happen again. Why not make it transparent? I would have had an easier time swallowing the pill if I didn't feel as though I was being singled-out for unclear reasons. At the time I definitely felt as though someone/people were going out of their way to make a special case for me. Yes, the rules state that we can be banned for any reason but that's more of a "cover your ass in case you forgot something" clause. That way when someone comes at posts a screamer gif or something you can ban them and no one will raise a fuss. Still, I think that most people would agree with me when I say that it shouldn't under any circumstance be used to punish someone who didn't do anything wrong. Pushing the boundaries is one thing but I mean at some point it comes across as a random ban/suspension and that will get people concerned.
To further drive this idea home, I want to highlight the fact that these bans and suspensions aren't made public. When I was suspended for 2 weeks from the casual forums there was no note of it made in the associated forum post. In addition, my suspension was not handled in an automated fashion. I had to contact a moderator after 15 days to have my privileges reinstated. I'm not going to spill blood over another day but I mean it's never fun having to say "so... yeah... my sentence is over... right?" This is another clear example of the mods being "in the wrong" in my mind but I mean that's not the big concern here. The problem is that we're having people being punished for no crime, given no clear appeal process and no public record is being kept of it. I hate to sound hyperbolic and suggest that we're being tossed in Guantanamo Bay but I mean I hope that everyone, the mods included, can see why this is unnerving. It was certainly a concern to me anyways.
Again, let me stress the fact that I am not making excuses for the things that Condoms and I (and potentially others) have said. If you truly feel as though we were in the wrong and that we needed to be suspended, well, that's on you guys I guess. It's a subjective matter and there's no clear way to determine a fair resolution. Still, I personally believe that you are not handling these corner-cases in a fair and transparent manner. If this is going to be a recurring form of behavior correction then list it in the forum rules. Let people know how they should go about appealing it. Write something in the "Currently Banned/Suspended Users" forum post so that people are aware of the situation. If you're going to assign punishment to someone then you should better be damned well able to state your logic and/or reasoning behind it to the public.
I've been lurking. And yes, Nai explained that, to which Checkbox responded with what amounts to "nyeh nyeh you're wrong [insert thinly veiled jab at mtgs staff here]"
Nai didn't actually explain anything; all he did was say that Condoms' words were "scathing" and got upset that Condoms didn't actually offer any "help" towards the issues he was complaining about/pointing out. Basically Nai told us that Condoms was CI-banned for no other reason than the staff got butthurt because he didn't spruce up his language to their Special Snowflake Standards.
For review, here is every one of Condoms' posts in the previous thread:
"Or even if they can't justify it!
Sooooo, does this mean we can now be imfracted for trolling not jst users, but corporations/companies? That's crazygonuts."
"That's pretty accurate."
"So, no one answered my question. We can now be infracted for "trolling" companies, groups, and other non tangible entities such as but not limited to political parties, interest groups, etc? That's insane. What about all the posts in entertainment criticizing those in the entertainment industry or sports world?
Wow."
"Wow. This is an Internet forum. Infracting people for strongly criticizing the things I listed is beyond ridiculous. Beyond it.
I assume the entertainment subs should soon be littered with retroactive infractions under this new wonderful interpretation of the rules then?"
"Basically all I'm getting at this point is "well infract as we see fit based on if we agree with your opinion and no you won't know if what you are posting is okay"
I guess everyone should never say anything negative about anything?
Hooray special snowflakes!"
"Former New England tight end Aaron Hernandez is a murderer and scum of a human being. What a waste of top talent.
The above is slander in your definition, algebra.
You are seriously missing the point. Neither is really slander, unless maybe the mtgstaff decides so based on who know what criteria."
Truly scathing stuff. Here, staff; have a burn heal.
@Cz: you bring up a good point about posting it publicly when it happens. We could use the currently banned/suspended users for this.
As for your "terrorist" comparison, remember that this is just an internet forum, and none of us don't really have any rights here, only privileges. You can do something here that's not strictly speaking against any law, or even explicitly mentioned in the forum rules, but it might still warrant moderator action. It's also important to remember that the crimes are small (causing minor trouble on an internet discussion board), but the punishment is also small (temporary removal of posting privileges on said internet discussion board).
Nai didn't actually explain anything; all he did was say that Condoms' words were "scathing" and got upset that Condoms didn't actually offer any "help" towards the issues he was complaining about/pointing out. Basically Nai told us that Condoms was CI-banned for no other reason than the staff got butthurt because he didn't spruce up his language to their Special Snowflake Standards.
There are two arguments to this:
1. You know the rules, you know their standards. Don't post if you are breaking them
2. He was spamming, unconstructive, meme, complaint type posts are generally seen as spam.
For review, here is every one of Condoms' posts in the previous thread:
"Or even if they can't justify it!
Sooooo, does this mean we can now be imfracted for trolling not jst users, but corporations/companies? That's crazygonuts."
"That's pretty accurate."
"So, no one answered my question. We can now be infracted for "trolling" companies, groups, and other non tangible entities such as but not limited to political parties, interest groups, etc? That's insane. What about all the posts in entertainment criticizing those in the entertainment industry or sports world?
Wow."
"Wow. This is an Internet forum. Infracting people for strongly criticizing the things I listed is beyond ridiculous. Beyond it.
I assume the entertainment subs should soon be littered with retroactive infractions under this new wonderful interpretation of the rules then?"
"Basically all I'm getting at this point is "well infract as we see fit based on if we agree with your opinion and no you won't know if what you are posting is okay"
I guess everyone should never say anything negative about anything?
Hooray special snowflakes!"
"Former New England tight end Aaron Hernandez is a murderer and scum of a human being. What a waste of top talent.
The above is slander in your definition, algebra.
You are seriously missing the point. Neither is really slander, unless maybe the mtgstaff decides so based on who know what criteria."
Truly scathing stuff. Here, staff; have a burn heal.
He sounds like the special snowflake to me. I mean, none of that was constructive, none of that was useful, and yeah, all of it was annoying. The post by cz that I quoted, that was a useful, constructive post. "Nyeh nyeh, mods are literally hitler" is not.
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?
I really don't know what you want a critic to say, Glimyrpost: other people proposed interpretations of the rules under which mods arguably have arbitrary discretion, and Condoms expressed extreme disapproval of those interpretations. Yes, he could have been more polite. But he has a legitimate opinion on those rules, and acting like he just said a bunch of critical things in a vacuum isn't accurate. Further, a world where we ban expressions of plain disapproval of things without an appended alternative policy just isn't an ideal world.
To relate Cz, Condoms, and the Valarin ordeal, I would like to point out that Valarin's suspension both 1) was publicized on a thread and 2) occurred after several months of PM conversations between Galspanic and Valarin. These forum masks do not seem to have occurred with those kinds of procedures, and that's a problem. The Condoms issue is the most scary because the admins apparently used this unique procedure on somebody expressing a genuine if impolite complaint about real rules interpretations by mods being applied to people.
He sounds like the special snowflake to me. I mean, none of that was constructive, none of that was useful, and yeah, all of it was annoying. The post by cz that I quoted, that was a useful, constructive post. "Nyeh nyeh, mods are literally hitler" is not.
Ok, lets go through this one-by-one, because that's apparently what it is going to take:
Quote from Condoms »
Or even if they can't justify it!
Sooooo, does this mean we can now be imfracted for trolling not jst users, but corporations/companies? That's crazygonuts.
He asks a question clarifying a new (to him) interpretation of the trolling rules, and expresses his opinion towards the expected response.
Quote from Condoms »
"That's pretty accurate."
Answers another's question based on the absurd things being discussed in the thread.
Quote from Condoms »
So, no one answered my question. We can now be infracted for "trolling" companies, groups, and other non tangible entities such as but not limited to political parties, interest groups, etc? That's insane. What about all the posts in entertainment criticizing those in the entertainment industry or sports world?
Wow.
Expresses discontent at his earlier question not being answered, and again expresses his opinion at the expected response.
Quote from Condoms »
Wow. This is an Internet forum. Infracting people for strongly criticizing the things I listed is beyond ridiculous. Beyond it.
I assume the entertainment subs should soon be littered with retroactive infractions under this new wonderful interpretation of the rules then?
Again expresses the opinion above. And then takes it the reductio ad absurdum route in an effort to put an argument to his opinion.
Quote from Condoms »
Basically all I'm getting at this point is "well infract as we see fit based on if we agree with your opinion and no you won't know if what you are posting is okay"
I guess everyone should never say anything negative about anything?
Hooray special snowflakes!
Again, asking a clarification question to ensure he is understanding what is going on correctly. The special snowflakes comment is merely reinforcing a trend of the staff to make sure No Feelings Are Hurt Ever by interpreting the rules how they want to make sure All Special Snowflakes Feel Welcomed and Safe and Secure and Without Butthurt.
Quote from Condoms »
Former New England tight end Aaron Hernandez is a murderer and scum of a human being. What a waste of top talent.
The above is slander in your definition, algebra.
You are seriously missing the point. Neither is really slander, unless maybe the mtgstaff decides so based on who know what criteria.
Points out that someone is missing the definition of slander (again, by using reductio ad absurdum) and then pointing this out a bit more clearly.
So, where, in the above, was Condoms spamming, unconstructive, meme, and making complaint type posts "generally seen as spam"???
As for your "terrorist" comparison, remember that this is just an internet forum, and none of us don't really have any rights here, only privileges. You can do something here that's not strictly speaking against any law, or even explicitly mentioned in the forum rules, but it might still warrant moderator action.
While it's true that no one here technically possesses any right we're still human beings and I personally believe that we should be treated accordingly. The moderators, just as much as the regular users, should be held accountable to how they apply their privileges in my mind. They too should be revoked if they're abused. If not, well, I can't say that it would reflect positively on your trustworthiness.
It's also important to remember that the crimes are small (causing minor trouble on an internet discussion board), but the punishment is also small (temporary removal of posting privileges on said internet discussion board).
No offense, but don't try and qualify the magnitude of your actions to me. It's very easy for the guy acting as judge, jury and executioner to say "oh this isn't so bad, look how lenient I'm being" but it's not so clear-cut when you're the person on the receiving end. I am a human being with human emotions and if I feel as though I'm being mistreated then it's going to negatively effect me in a real way. That is true even if it's simply on an Internet forum. As such, please do not tell me that my punishments are small and that they shouldn't concern me. They most certainly do. When I log on to MTGS and I can't help people fix their multiplayer decks it negatively affects my mood. For 2 weeks my overall happiness diminished. Whether you approve/agree or not is irrelevant because I know how I feel. Use your privileges however you want, I'm not saying otherwise, just don't for one second pretend as though you know what it's like to be the one who's kicked around from time-to-time. Things that may seem inconsequential to you almost certainly have negative, real-world implications on other people.
To give you an idea, just take a quick glance at my blog posts, my guides over at the casual forums, the average length of my posts, etc. I've spent hundreds and hundreds of hours on this site sharing my insights and expressing my ideas to others. The prospect of having that taken away from me for unclear reasons is legitimately scary and it would have a relatively large and severe impact on my life. Something that I cherish deeply could get ripped away from me and there's no guarantee that I would understand the reasoning behind it. This isn't something negligible to me. This is a huge aspect of my life. If you're going to axe me, do it, I can't stop you, it would just be nice to get closure and understand why it's happening.
I think its pretty hard to make concrete rules about behavior and general posting manner. If an individual is constantly posting below infraction threshold, but deterring others from participation or creating ire within that forum, nothing could be done that wouldn't seem unjust or uncalled for.
Perhaps instead of the statement "We can ban for any reason", it could read more professional. In example, "We will infract or suspend for behavior we feel is detriment to the atmosphere of the forum". Then when the issue arises, you have something to point to.
Either way, it will always be subjective to what the moderators feel is good or bad for the forum environment they are trying to maintain.
Either way..... this forum will always have its anti-staff peoples.
I say some controversial things and I definitely engage in direct debates with other posters. Because of this I often find myself on the receiving end of an infraction and so my relationship with the mods is tenuous at best. As such, I wasn't exactly surprised when this transpired, but it still left a bit of a weird taste in my mouth.
Yah. I won't touch that section anymore. The message was clear. Sadly, casual multiplayer is 99% of what I do in magic.
I think its pretty hard to make concrete rules about behavior and general posting manner. If an individual is constantly posting below infraction threshold, but deterring others from participation or creating ire within that forum, nothing could be done that wouldn't seem unjust or uncalled for.
Perhaps instead of the statement "We can ban for any reason", it could read more professional. In example, "We will infract or suspend for behavior we feel is detriment to the atmosphere of the forum". Then when the issue arises, you have something to point to.
This works except when your staff creates ire out of thin air. Condoms was literally just expressing discontent, and not even being rude about it (I literally cannot see one rude thing on all those posts... but when you throw "because gutter" into the mix...). But when the Butt of the Staff becomes hurt, it doesn't matter how unjust or uncalled for it is, because they have their "fine print" line already, they don't need it to sound any more professional than it already does.
So much drama would be spared if only people spoke to people instead of just taking away their toys.
When you continuously get spat in the face and laughed after attempting to be amicable and trying the former, there's not much else left for you to do. And I think calling access "toys" is appropriate, given a handful of users have no stake in community drama other than trying to escalate it for fun.
When you continuously get spat in the face and laughed after attempting to be amicable and trying the former, there's not much else left for you to do. And I think calling access "toys" is appropriate, given a handful of users have no stake in community drama other than trying to escalate it for fun.
But Condoms wasn't escalating anything other than the level of the discussion
This works except when your staff creates ire out of thin air. Condoms was literally just expressing discontent, and not even being rude about it (I literally cannot see one rude thing on all those posts... but when you throw "because gutter" into the mix...). But when the Butt of the Staff becomes hurt, it doesn't matter how unjust or uncalled for it is, because they have their "fine print" line already, they don't need it to sound any more professional than it already does.
This is a matter of perspective. You might not see anything rude, but I can, so it's not just the mods here, and I'm not against Condoms because he participated in the Gutter. I don't even know what the gutter IS. I haven't been here long enough.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Collecting Maw of the Mire! Feel free to send me any you have, so long as they're in reasonable condition.
When you continuously get spat in the face and laughed after attempting to be amicable and trying the former, there's not much else left for you to do. And I think calling access "toys" is appropriate, given a handful of users have no stake in community drama other than trying to escalate it for fun.
Like the way you spat in the face as well? I say you done it far worse in some cases cause you would push yourself into it to do it.
All in all, Condoms (and Maddings), Cz, are the three of the four users users I can think of that had this type of stuff put on them. I have to say. I agree with each of those cases. All of those members IMO deserved it. I do think the making of it more public is a good idea.
Also I don't think it's a "we are suspending you to make you scared of being banned" I think they are legitimately trying to help. Telling people to calm down in form of a brief suspension while telling them what they did wrong is a very effective method of reform. The users who don't want to change just don't and end up getting banned (do not I'm not taking this from a forum point of view but I know that in MMOs they do it like that and they see fantastic results).
Like the way you spat in the face as well? I say you done it far worse in some cases cause you would push yourself into it to do it.
It's funny, because I did that 8 years ago when I was an angsty teenager. I grew up, matured and stopped doing it; the days you like to harp on ended in about two months back in 2005. I'm able to admit I was immature back then, hence why things are as they are now. I didn't even have my own website to go mind my own business on, and I grew up - what's your all's excuse?
It's funny, because I did that 8 years ago when I was an angsty teenager. I grew up, matured and stopped doing it; the days you like to harp on ended in about two months back in 2005. I'm able to admit I was immature back then, hence why things are as they are now. I didn't even have my own website to go mind my own business on, and I grew up - what's your all's excuse?
Well looks to me you haven't grew up at all. Cause what I refered to has been recent like in the past year. Nice cute story. Almost a 10 out of 10. But a misrepresented ending dropped it to a 8.
The difference between you and me is your more then likely festering at me while I couldn't care less.
When you continuously get spat in the face and laughed after attempting to be amicable and trying the former, there's not much else left for you to do. And I think calling access "toys" is appropriate, given a handful of users have no stake in community drama other than trying to escalate it for fun.
I was referring to Cz's ability to post in the Casual forum.
If a poster is "too abrasive", mods probably should talk to them. But also people should use their ignore lists. They are there for a reason. Ask {mikeyG}, I believe he has one of the most extensive ignore lists around, and his enjoyment of the forum is not affected by people he doesn't like.
Well looks to me you haven't grew up at all. Cause what I refered to has been recent like in the past year. Nice cute story. Almost a 10 out of 10. But a misrepresented ending dropped it to a 8.
The difference between you and me is your more then likely festering at me while I couldn't care less.
That's funny, because I don't wait for you to respond so I can post cheeky remarks; that, and I contribute to the greater website instead of just instigating drama. You guys have your own website - if it's as great as you guys like to proclaim it is, then you shouldn't have any business or stake in what goes on here anymore.
Anyway, I'm done. I pretty much knew as soon as I posted, that you'd be waiting (as always) to try and turn it into something personal with me, because you don't actually do anything else for these forums other than wait to interject with issues on a website you supposedly care so little for. That you guys have your own website, have to talk about us so much on it, then come here and come here and derail any potentially constructive discussion says a lot about what you guys are. I don't need to say anymore, considering you guys don't do too well at furthering the cause of DTR every time you show up in CI.
this isn't really about the gutter, its about Condoms. Since when is reductio ad absurdum considered "not constructive"? Are we only allowing MTGS-Approved Forms of Debate now?
My 360 Commons Cube
Your favorite MTG website
Did anyone say that? I think they said that poisoning the well and making numerous posts before anyone official could respond was not constructive. You know, insulting people and spamming, more or less. Those things are always against the rules. Now, whether or not you think he was spamming or insulting doesn't matter, the staff thinks it was, there is the justification.
Where have you been? They just spent a page of the thread arguing about DTR and the Gutter. Checkbox tried to move it back to Condoms. He said he didn't think the posts made by Condoms were non-constructive. One of the points of CI involves people discussing mod action and questioning justifications. This isn't a magical Christmas land where if the mods say it's offensive it actually is offensive. That's why we're here talking about it. For example, Nai explained in some detail why he thought Condoms's posts weren't helpful, opening up the issue to scrutiny and discussion.
I've been lurking. And yes, Nai explained that, to which Checkbox responded with what amounts to "nyeh nyeh you're wrong [insert thinly veiled jab at mtgs staff here]"
And actually, yes it is. There is a forum for discussion of whether the mods are right, but until that discussion is concluded, what the mods said is canon.
For starters, it's difficult to challenge a punishment with no associated crime. If you're trying to appeal your innocence to a judge then it helps if you know what you're being convicted of. Using an aggressive tone or saying something controversial won't get you arrested in the real world so it's not exactly clear how we're supposed to tackle the situation when it happens online. It's straight-up discipline with no correlating transgression and that goes against what most people consider to be a fair process. I realize that special measures are sometimes taken in an attempt to thwart terrorist activity but I mean I don't think that anyone here could argue that people like us are terrorists to the site. It just irks me that we're told to reference our infracted posts when there aren't any to begin with. It feels as though we're being punished for no reason and given an impossible-to-complete appeal process. We could easily still be in the wrong, I accept that, but I personally believe that the MTG Staff is also in the wrong on this matter as well. And yes, I don't think for the second that the conclusions are mutually exclusive.
Anyways, I'm personally under the impression that this is their attempt at a "scared straight" program. Our trespasses aren't severe enough to warrant site-wide bans or suspensions but I feel as though it's an attempt to put the "fear of God" in us in the hopes that we'll reform or rethink our actions in the future. Who knows, maybe you can save us before we get ourselves banned for real. If that's your intent, be public about it. Put it in the rules and let people know that it's realistic possibility. If it's happened to me and if it's happened to the users named in this thread then I'm betting that it's happened before and it'll happen again. Why not make it transparent? I would have had an easier time swallowing the pill if I didn't feel as though I was being singled-out for unclear reasons. At the time I definitely felt as though someone/people were going out of their way to make a special case for me. Yes, the rules state that we can be banned for any reason but that's more of a "cover your ass in case you forgot something" clause. That way when someone comes at posts a screamer gif or something you can ban them and no one will raise a fuss. Still, I think that most people would agree with me when I say that it shouldn't under any circumstance be used to punish someone who didn't do anything wrong. Pushing the boundaries is one thing but I mean at some point it comes across as a random ban/suspension and that will get people concerned.
To further drive this idea home, I want to highlight the fact that these bans and suspensions aren't made public. When I was suspended for 2 weeks from the casual forums there was no note of it made in the associated forum post. In addition, my suspension was not handled in an automated fashion. I had to contact a moderator after 15 days to have my privileges reinstated. I'm not going to spill blood over another day but I mean it's never fun having to say "so... yeah... my sentence is over... right?" This is another clear example of the mods being "in the wrong" in my mind but I mean that's not the big concern here. The problem is that we're having people being punished for no crime, given no clear appeal process and no public record is being kept of it. I hate to sound hyperbolic and suggest that we're being tossed in Guantanamo Bay but I mean I hope that everyone, the mods included, can see why this is unnerving. It was certainly a concern to me anyways.
Again, let me stress the fact that I am not making excuses for the things that Condoms and I (and potentially others) have said. If you truly feel as though we were in the wrong and that we needed to be suspended, well, that's on you guys I guess. It's a subjective matter and there's no clear way to determine a fair resolution. Still, I personally believe that you are not handling these corner-cases in a fair and transparent manner. If this is going to be a recurring form of behavior correction then list it in the forum rules. Let people know how they should go about appealing it. Write something in the "Currently Banned/Suspended Users" forum post so that people are aware of the situation. If you're going to assign punishment to someone then you should better be damned well able to state your logic and/or reasoning behind it to the public.
Guilds of Ravnica - Commander 2018 - Core 2019 - Battlebond - Dominaria - Rivals of Ixalan - Ixalan - Commander 2017 - Hour of Devastation - Amonket - Aether Revolt - Commander 2016 - Kaladesh - Conspiracy 2 - Eldritch Moon - Shadows Over Innistrad - Oath of the Gatewatch - Commander 2015 - Battle for Zendikar - Magic Origins - Dragons of Tarkir
Green - Blue - Red - White - Gold
Nai didn't actually explain anything; all he did was say that Condoms' words were "scathing" and got upset that Condoms didn't actually offer any "help" towards the issues he was complaining about/pointing out. Basically Nai told us that Condoms was CI-banned for no other reason than the staff got butthurt because he didn't spruce up his language to their Special Snowflake Standards.
For review, here is every one of Condoms' posts in the previous thread:
"Or even if they can't justify it!
Sooooo, does this mean we can now be imfracted for trolling not jst users, but corporations/companies? That's crazygonuts."
"That's pretty accurate."
"So, no one answered my question. We can now be infracted for "trolling" companies, groups, and other non tangible entities such as but not limited to political parties, interest groups, etc? That's insane. What about all the posts in entertainment criticizing those in the entertainment industry or sports world?
Wow."
"Wow. This is an Internet forum. Infracting people for strongly criticizing the things I listed is beyond ridiculous. Beyond it.
I assume the entertainment subs should soon be littered with retroactive infractions under this new wonderful interpretation of the rules then?"
"Basically all I'm getting at this point is "well infract as we see fit based on if we agree with your opinion and no you won't know if what you are posting is okay"
I guess everyone should never say anything negative about anything?
Hooray special snowflakes!"
"Former New England tight end Aaron Hernandez is a murderer and scum of a human being. What a waste of top talent.
The above is slander in your definition, algebra.
You are seriously missing the point. Neither is really slander, unless maybe the mtgstaff decides so based on who know what criteria."
Truly scathing stuff. Here, staff; have a burn heal.
My 360 Commons Cube
Your favorite MTG website
As for your "terrorist" comparison, remember that this is just an internet forum, and none of us don't really have any rights here, only privileges. You can do something here that's not strictly speaking against any law, or even explicitly mentioned in the forum rules, but it might still warrant moderator action. It's also important to remember that the crimes are small (causing minor trouble on an internet discussion board), but the punishment is also small (temporary removal of posting privileges on said internet discussion board).
I thank you for your input, though
I'd actually love to hear mod input on this, as this doesn't sit kosher with me.
There are two arguments to this:
1. You know the rules, you know their standards. Don't post if you are breaking them
2. He was spamming, unconstructive, meme, complaint type posts are generally seen as spam.
He sounds like the special snowflake to me. I mean, none of that was constructive, none of that was useful, and yeah, all of it was annoying. The post by cz that I quoted, that was a useful, constructive post. "Nyeh nyeh, mods are literally hitler" is not.
My YouTube Channel
To relate Cz, Condoms, and the Valarin ordeal, I would like to point out that Valarin's suspension both 1) was publicized on a thread and 2) occurred after several months of PM conversations between Galspanic and Valarin. These forum masks do not seem to have occurred with those kinds of procedures, and that's a problem. The Condoms issue is the most scary because the admins apparently used this unique procedure on somebody expressing a genuine if impolite complaint about real rules interpretations by mods being applied to people.
Ok, lets go through this one-by-one, because that's apparently what it is going to take:
He asks a question clarifying a new (to him) interpretation of the trolling rules, and expresses his opinion towards the expected response.
Answers another's question based on the absurd things being discussed in the thread.
Expresses discontent at his earlier question not being answered, and again expresses his opinion at the expected response.
Again expresses the opinion above. And then takes it the reductio ad absurdum route in an effort to put an argument to his opinion.
Again, asking a clarification question to ensure he is understanding what is going on correctly. The special snowflakes comment is merely reinforcing a trend of the staff to make sure No Feelings Are Hurt Ever by interpreting the rules how they want to make sure All Special Snowflakes Feel Welcomed and Safe and Secure and Without Butthurt.
Points out that someone is missing the definition of slander (again, by using reductio ad absurdum) and then pointing this out a bit more clearly.
So, where, in the above, was Condoms spamming, unconstructive, meme, and making complaint type posts "generally seen as spam"???
P.S. I have some more Burn Heal if you want some
My 360 Commons Cube
Your favorite MTG website
While it's true that no one here technically possesses any right we're still human beings and I personally believe that we should be treated accordingly. The moderators, just as much as the regular users, should be held accountable to how they apply their privileges in my mind. They too should be revoked if they're abused. If not, well, I can't say that it would reflect positively on your trustworthiness.
No offense, but don't try and qualify the magnitude of your actions to me. It's very easy for the guy acting as judge, jury and executioner to say "oh this isn't so bad, look how lenient I'm being" but it's not so clear-cut when you're the person on the receiving end. I am a human being with human emotions and if I feel as though I'm being mistreated then it's going to negatively effect me in a real way. That is true even if it's simply on an Internet forum. As such, please do not tell me that my punishments are small and that they shouldn't concern me. They most certainly do. When I log on to MTGS and I can't help people fix their multiplayer decks it negatively affects my mood. For 2 weeks my overall happiness diminished. Whether you approve/agree or not is irrelevant because I know how I feel. Use your privileges however you want, I'm not saying otherwise, just don't for one second pretend as though you know what it's like to be the one who's kicked around from time-to-time. Things that may seem inconsequential to you almost certainly have negative, real-world implications on other people.
To give you an idea, just take a quick glance at my blog posts, my guides over at the casual forums, the average length of my posts, etc. I've spent hundreds and hundreds of hours on this site sharing my insights and expressing my ideas to others. The prospect of having that taken away from me for unclear reasons is legitimately scary and it would have a relatively large and severe impact on my life. Something that I cherish deeply could get ripped away from me and there's no guarantee that I would understand the reasoning behind it. This isn't something negligible to me. This is a huge aspect of my life. If you're going to axe me, do it, I can't stop you, it would just be nice to get closure and understand why it's happening.
Guilds of Ravnica - Commander 2018 - Core 2019 - Battlebond - Dominaria - Rivals of Ixalan - Ixalan - Commander 2017 - Hour of Devastation - Amonket - Aether Revolt - Commander 2016 - Kaladesh - Conspiracy 2 - Eldritch Moon - Shadows Over Innistrad - Oath of the Gatewatch - Commander 2015 - Battle for Zendikar - Magic Origins - Dragons of Tarkir
Green - Blue - Red - White - Gold
Perhaps instead of the statement "We can ban for any reason", it could read more professional. In example, "We will infract or suspend for behavior we feel is detriment to the atmosphere of the forum". Then when the issue arises, you have something to point to.
Either way, it will always be subjective to what the moderators feel is good or bad for the forum environment they are trying to maintain.
Either way..... this forum will always have its anti-staff peoples.
Yah. I won't touch that section anymore. The message was clear. Sadly, casual multiplayer is 99% of what I do in magic.
My Buying Thread
This works except when your staff creates ire out of thin air. Condoms was literally just expressing discontent, and not even being rude about it (I literally cannot see one rude thing on all those posts... but when you throw "because gutter" into the mix...). But when the Butt of the Staff becomes hurt, it doesn't matter how unjust or uncalled for it is, because they have their "fine print" line already, they don't need it to sound any more professional than it already does.
My 360 Commons Cube
Your favorite MTG website
When you continuously get spat in the face and laughed after attempting to be amicable and trying the former, there's not much else left for you to do. And I think calling access "toys" is appropriate, given a handful of users have no stake in community drama other than trying to escalate it for fun.
(Also known as Xenphire)
But Condoms wasn't escalating anything other than the level of the discussion
My 360 Commons Cube
Your favorite MTG website
This is a matter of perspective. You might not see anything rude, but I can, so it's not just the mods here, and I'm not against Condoms because he participated in the Gutter. I don't even know what the gutter IS. I haven't been here long enough.
but perspective can be wrong
My 360 Commons Cube
Your favorite MTG website
Like the way you spat in the face as well? I say you done it far worse in some cases cause you would push yourself into it to do it.
Also I don't think it's a "we are suspending you to make you scared of being banned" I think they are legitimately trying to help. Telling people to calm down in form of a brief suspension while telling them what they did wrong is a very effective method of reform. The users who don't want to change just don't and end up getting banned (do not I'm not taking this from a forum point of view but I know that in MMOs they do it like that and they see fantastic results).
It's funny, because I did that 8 years ago when I was an angsty teenager. I grew up, matured and stopped doing it; the days you like to harp on ended in about two months back in 2005. I'm able to admit I was immature back then, hence why things are as they are now. I didn't even have my own website to go mind my own business on, and I grew up - what's your all's excuse?
(Also known as Xenphire)
Well looks to me you haven't grew up at all. Cause what I refered to has been recent like in the past year. Nice cute story. Almost a 10 out of 10. But a misrepresented ending dropped it to a 8.
The difference between you and me is your more then likely festering at me while I couldn't care less.
I was referring to Cz's ability to post in the Casual forum.
If a poster is "too abrasive", mods probably should talk to them. But also people should use their ignore lists. They are there for a reason. Ask {mikeyG}, I believe he has one of the most extensive ignore lists around, and his enjoyment of the forum is not affected by people he doesn't like.
My YouTube Channel
That's funny, because I don't wait for you to respond so I can post cheeky remarks; that, and I contribute to the greater website instead of just instigating drama. You guys have your own website - if it's as great as you guys like to proclaim it is, then you shouldn't have any business or stake in what goes on here anymore.
Anyway, I'm done. I pretty much knew as soon as I posted, that you'd be waiting (as always) to try and turn it into something personal with me, because you don't actually do anything else for these forums other than wait to interject with issues on a website you supposedly care so little for. That you guys have your own website, have to talk about us so much on it, then come here and come here and derail any potentially constructive discussion says a lot about what you guys are. I don't need to say anymore, considering you guys don't do too well at furthering the cause of DTR every time you show up in CI.
(Also known as Xenphire)