I ask because of the recent banning of Paffim/kcw. He clearly wants to be here, and he's clearly shown himself capable of behaving himself. The reasons for banning him were, frankly, sketchy to begin with, but more importantly, they aren't really relevant anymore, or at least, they don't need to be.
I don't feel incredibly strongly on this subject, so if it just isn't going to happen, I'll drop it, but I think it would be a good thing for the site. I may agree with almost nothing he says, but his posts are useful and well-thought-out contributions, and to my knowledge (reviewing his posts for red text), he has never received an infraction since December.
Maybe a "don't ask, don't tell" policy would be okay, at least for the first time? I mean, clearly Kroen is going to get banned no matter how many times he comes back, so permabanning makes sense, but Paffim seems to demonstrate that it should be possible to relent in at least a few cases.
[I admit I have an ulterior motive. I want kcw to come play Mafia. We need a good replacement for a couple games.]
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
Heck, I'd be for it just for the reason that I'm good-hearted. There are plenty of very solid reasons to lift a ban. Of course, you'd have to ask yourself, "Why was he banned?". I don't know, so I can't judge...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hey kids! Don't like rules? Tired of having your lulz censored by terrible, terrible people called "moderators"? Big fan of metal? Check out Metaln☺☺☺☺! This is probably the worst possible forum to advertise it on!
Added bonus: we're holding a songwriting contest in march with a registry drive going on right now! Check it out, plus the opportunity to earn $50!
Unbanning would pretty much just go against one of the founding rules of forums. Bannings are meant to be permanent. Suspensions are not. If you can't behave, then you shouldn't be here. Unbanning would just dredge up trouble, and make countless other banned members go up in arms.
Unbanning would pretty much just go against one of the founding rules of forums. Bannings are meant to be permanent. Suspensions are not. If you can't behave, then you shouldn't be here. Unbanning would just dredge up trouble, and make countless other banned members go up in arms.
I agree with Alacar. It's not so much of a "Well, maybe it could have been a suspension", but a "Well, what about every other banned member!?". I'm also not too sure of the details involved in that banning, as I was also a little surprised, but I have lots of faith in our awesome moderators. [/kissass]
I don't know. I've read the whole suspended/banned thread and it looks like you have to be pretty obnoxious to get banned. Also, I think the mods do occasionally let people come back, but they have to go through the right channels, not just sneak in under a new username. One must also wonder about someone who is so obsessive about this site or any other that they try to sneak back in after a banning. Don't get me wrong, the site is awesome, but there is just so much else that one could be doing in life.
If you can't behave, then you shouldn't be here. Unbanning would just dredge up trouble, and make countless other banned members go up in arms.
Well, for one, Paffim can behave. And for two, that's why I suggested the whole "don't ask, don't tell" idea. If no one knows when a banned member has come back, there's nothing to get up in arms about.
One must also wonder about someone who is so obsessive about this site or any other that they try to sneak back in after a banning. Don't get me wrong, the site is awesome, but there is just so much else that one could be doing in life.
A lot of people post here while at work, just because they don't have anything better to do. I know I, for one, would go insane if I couldn't post here or somewhere very similar.
Regardless, kcw was gone for quite a while before Paffim showed up, so this argument doesn't really apply.
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
My understanding is that there are proper channels to coming back where you can make a case saying you've improved your behavior depending on why you were banned. By creating a new account to come back without the use of these methods, however, a banned user waives that right by showing that he or she still disregards the rules of this forum.
In other words, by creating Paffim, kcw has shown that he's still unwilling to hold to our rules and deserves to remain banned.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[The Crafters] | [Johnnies United]
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours! EXPLAIN THAT!
The only problem with that standard of operation is that the logic implied there is only relevant in cases where someone makes a new account in short order. Note that the rule you're appealing to is the exact rule I'm suggesting be changed.
Making a new account after 1 year or so of being gone could be anything from simple forgetfulness about what's required to not wanting to dredge up history which shouldn't matter anymore.
The point is that Paffim, as a unique person from kcw, never did anything banworthy (or even infraction-worthy, AFAIK) despite having been given literally hundreds of opportunities to do so. You can't fairly say that Paffim is "unwilling to hold to our rules," given that evidence. Just because that evidence wouldn't exist under normal circumstances doesn't mean it shouldn't be given any weight.
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
The point is that Paffim, as a unique person from kcw, never did anything banworthy (or even infraction-worthy, AFAIK) despite having been given literally hundreds of opportunities to do so.
Paffim had two active infractions from the Debate forum at the time he was determined to be KCW.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am no longer on MTGS staff, so please don't contact me asking me to do staff things. :|
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
We have discussed the unbanning of previously banned members and decided that it wasn't a good idea. There's a REALLY long thread on it somewhere between pages 2-3 here in SYM.
When people get banned, it's for a reason. We don't arbitrarily decide that someone gets banned merely because we don't like them, or we disagree with them, or anything like that.
People get banned because they break the site rules. In kcw's case, he had done so, repeatedly, playing the existing system to avoid banning by using time limits of infractions. That is clearly against the rules, and so, after being given a bunch of chances, he finally got banned.
Banned does not mean "go away until no one remembers you". Banned means "You have exhausted the chances we have given you, and you have proven yourself to be unreceptive to the requests of the staff for you to conform to the rules. I'm sorry, but you are no longer welcome here."
That is my point of view, at least. I can't speak for urzassedatives and Lesurgo on this point.
And yes, no incantatrix for you. Or anyone. That class makes puppies cry. Mostly because they are the former Big Bads who have been Baleful Polymorphed into said puppies. By you. Because you're an incantatrix.
Quote from Yukora »
This is Deraxas we're talking about.
Remember, the girl that just killed an aspect of herself before literally consuming her?
Yeah, I don't see her handling a pissing match in any way other than a duel.
Quote from RedDwarfian »
Yes mistress...
Quote from About epic-level D&D »
There are only so many epic, psuedonatural barbarian/blackguard half-dragon akutenshai vampire balor paragons they can throw at you, right?
Quote from Concerning breeding habits of humans in fantasy games »
I suppose it's true. Though the logistics implied in a human/Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon pairing makes me shudder.
...Something tells me that even should all arcane casters in the world unite, that the Grease spell would NOT be sufficient.
When people get banned, it's for a reason. We don't arbitrarily decide that someone gets banned merely because we don't like them, or we disagree with them, or anything like that.
iirc this is exactly what happened with kcw and butteblues. sure they had many infractions but it required a judgement call of "enough is enough" rather than the rules strictly stating that they had enough infractions in a specific period of time to be banned.
god child, I know that you know that we suspend people before banning, and that you know that returning banned members are banned upon recognition.
Can I ask everyone a question: if this thread had all instances of the name "kcw" replaced with the name "Kroen", would it be here?
I don't personally have a problem with kcw. Never did. I don't take the handing out of warnings/infractions/suspensions/bannings personally; that isn't my job.
Enforcing the site rules is. Sometimes, even I disagree with a rule. I still enforce it. You guys have just as much right to ask for a rules review as I do; remember, it wasn't all that long ago when we had the thread here regarding just that, and everyone gave input, and some was even implemented.
Note that I'd REALLY appreciate it if you sent requests for a rules review to my inbox rather than post it here.
And yes, no incantatrix for you. Or anyone. That class makes puppies cry. Mostly because they are the former Big Bads who have been Baleful Polymorphed into said puppies. By you. Because you're an incantatrix.
Quote from Yukora »
This is Deraxas we're talking about.
Remember, the girl that just killed an aspect of herself before literally consuming her?
Yeah, I don't see her handling a pissing match in any way other than a duel.
Quote from RedDwarfian »
Yes mistress...
Quote from About epic-level D&D »
There are only so many epic, psuedonatural barbarian/blackguard half-dragon akutenshai vampire balor paragons they can throw at you, right?
Quote from Concerning breeding habits of humans in fantasy games »
I suppose it's true. Though the logistics implied in a human/Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon pairing makes me shudder.
...Something tells me that even should all arcane casters in the world unite, that the Grease spell would NOT be sufficient.
god child, I know that you know that we suspend people before banning, and that you know that returning banned members are banned upon recognition.
obviously paffim should have been banned. that was clear cut. i'm saying that at the time that kcw and butteblues were banned, they didn't meet any explicit criteria, merely administrator discretion.
obviously paffim should have been banned. that was clear cut. i'm saying that at the time that kcw and butteblues were banned, they didn't meet any explicit criteria, merely administrator discretion.
Only because they played the system. They would get warnings and infractions until they were on the cusp of a long suspension and then pull back a bit until some punishments expire then went back at it. They were both consistently misbehaving and were cagey enough to not get suspended for it, so in that respect I can understand why administrator discretion was involved here.
And note that this comes from a longtime supporter of both of them.
Only because they played the system. They would get warnings and infractions until they were on the cusp of a long suspension and then pull back a bit until some punishments expire then went back at it. They were both consistently misbehaving and were cagey enough to not get suspended for it, so in that respect I can understand why administrator discretion was involved here.
And note that this comes from a longtime supporter of both of them.
yes, that is exactly what happened. Technically speaking, they didn't break the rules enough to get banned, but moderation team at the time - "When people get banned, it's for a reason. We don't arbitrarily decide that someone gets banned merely because we don't like them, or we disagree with them, or anything like that." - just didn't like kcw and bb.
that was my point; not that they should or shouldn't have been banned, but that what aok said wasn't true in the particular case of kcw and bb.
Yes, it was. I REALLY don't appreciate that comment, god child, but I guess I'll live with it.
In that situation, it was perfectly clear to the moderation team that the two users in question were abusing the system. They broke enough rules to get banned thrice over; I've read the user notes, infraction histories, and whatnot- it was painfully clear that they deserved a banning as a result of their own actions long before that ban ever took place.
Or are you trying to say that working the system is a viable way to get around being banned?
I really hope you don't believe that; we keep a closer record of who gets suspended these days, and clear patterns of the same behavior tell me that whoever's been getting twelve infractions for flaming probably doesn't get it. We even have extended suspensions; there are several users on their three-month vacation from MTGSally.
And yes, no incantatrix for you. Or anyone. That class makes puppies cry. Mostly because they are the former Big Bads who have been Baleful Polymorphed into said puppies. By you. Because you're an incantatrix.
Quote from Yukora »
This is Deraxas we're talking about.
Remember, the girl that just killed an aspect of herself before literally consuming her?
Yeah, I don't see her handling a pissing match in any way other than a duel.
Quote from RedDwarfian »
Yes mistress...
Quote from About epic-level D&D »
There are only so many epic, psuedonatural barbarian/blackguard half-dragon akutenshai vampire balor paragons they can throw at you, right?
Quote from Concerning breeding habits of humans in fantasy games »
I suppose it's true. Though the logistics implied in a human/Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon pairing makes me shudder.
...Something tells me that even should all arcane casters in the world unite, that the Grease spell would NOT be sufficient.
according to the rules at the time, they shouldn't have been banned. they were banned because admin/mod team didn't like what they were doing: "We don't arbitrarily decide that someone gets banned merely because we don't like them, or we disagree with them, or anything like that." Edit: soulnds like that "something like that" occured.
If the rules had stated that anyone who gets a 10th warning in a 5 year period will be banned, then they wouldn't have been banned. Edit: because they would have changed thier behaviour.
You can't put this rules system in place then pretend that anyone who exploits its flaws is at fault; it is the rules system which is at fault.
KCW was pretty much, well. He did contribute to the site in many ways, but he also flamed people. In the end it is judgement call if he contributed enough to warrant special treatment from being banned, and he did not. Special treatment brings in the favoritism. If KCW wouldn't've been banned, it would have been because mods liked him, therefore it would have been favoritism.
I still miss the cat with the drink though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
KCW was pretty much, well. He did contribute to the site in many ways, but he also flamed people. In the end it is judgement call if he contributed enough to warrant special treatment from being banned, and he did not. Special treatment brings in the favoritism. If KCW wouldn't've been banned, it would have been because mods liked him, therefore it would have been favoritism.
I still miss the cat with the drink though.
No, if he hadn't recieve special treatment he wouldn't have been banned. Assuming you are talking about kcw not paffim.
Your argument, at first, was making a lot of sense....now it's meandering into the realms of pure semantics, and I think we both know it.
Rules exist for a reason. I think we agree on this point.
If you break the rules, you recieve penalties. We agree here as well.
If someone has shown that they break the rules in such a way as to circumvent said penalties, then they are abusing the rules system, which breaks the rules. See #2. This is implied to everyone, and I feel that almost any user would agree that someone who does this is obviously flipping the staff the virtual "birdie" when doing this.
That's where this discussion seems to be breaking down; apparently, you see nothing wroing with exploiting the existing system so that you do as you will until you are within arm's reach of a banning, and then stay clean for however long it takes for it to wear off. Things like that don't fly, not in my book, as I see it as more than simple rules violation; it's a slap in the face to those who take the time to enforce these rules and keep this site from degenerating into chaos.
They were given multiple chances to change their behavior. It didn't stay changed. They reverted to old habits, even though they knew better.
The last line you posted:
Quote from god child »
You can't put this rules system in place then pretend that anyone who exploits its flaws is at fault; it is the rules system which is at fault.
If you're trying to say that we need to find every possible loophole that exists and close it off so people can't enjoy rules exploitation, then I think we need to find a lawyer from the Eighth Layer of Hell to sort that one out.
Our rules are relatively simple. Yes, there are "loopholes" as you say. However, and I say this rather loudly, those who deliberately exploit what they believe to be a loophole in the system need to wake up; that's much like the act of a small child trying to say that since he told his little sister to get the cookies, he shouldn't be in trouble for eating them.
In other words, you know better, let's not make life harder than it already is.
And yes, no incantatrix for you. Or anyone. That class makes puppies cry. Mostly because they are the former Big Bads who have been Baleful Polymorphed into said puppies. By you. Because you're an incantatrix.
Quote from Yukora »
This is Deraxas we're talking about.
Remember, the girl that just killed an aspect of herself before literally consuming her?
Yeah, I don't see her handling a pissing match in any way other than a duel.
Quote from RedDwarfian »
Yes mistress...
Quote from About epic-level D&D »
There are only so many epic, psuedonatural barbarian/blackguard half-dragon akutenshai vampire balor paragons they can throw at you, right?
Quote from Concerning breeding habits of humans in fantasy games »
I suppose it's true. Though the logistics implied in a human/Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon pairing makes me shudder.
...Something tells me that even should all arcane casters in the world unite, that the Grease spell would NOT be sufficient.
KCW knew that the penalty for coming back under a different username was banning. Anyone who has ever bothered to look through the Suspended/Banned list knows this. IF that''s not enough, he managed to rack up more infractions while he was back. I think he did a great job of demonstrating that he can't follow the rules.
Your argument, at first, was making a lot of sense....now it's meandering into the realms of pure semantics, and I think we both know it.
Rules exist for a reason. I think we agree on this point.
If you break the rules, you recieve penalties. We agree here as well.
If someone has shown that they break the rules in such a way as to circumvent said penalties, then they are abusing the rules system, which breaks the rules. See #2. This is implied to everyone, and I feel that almost any user would agree that someone who does this is obviously flipping the staff the virtual "birdie" when doing this.
That's where this discussion seems to be breaking down; apparently, you see nothing wroing with exploiting the existing system so that you do as you will until you are within arm's reach of a banning, and then stay clean for however long it takes for it to wear off. Things like that don't fly, not in my book, as I see it as more than simple rules violation; it's a slap in the face to those who take the time to enforce these rules and keep this site from degenerating into chaos.
It isn't about whether I see anything wrong or not. It is about this quote of yours: "When people get banned, it's for a reason. We don't arbitrarily decide that someone gets banned merely because we don't like them, or we disagree with them, or anything like that." The decision was made that while technically kcw and bb couldn't be banned under the rules, admin/mod disapproval of thier behaviour was reason enough.
They were given multiple chances to change their behavior. It didn't stay changed. They reverted to old habits, even though they knew better.
The last line you posted:
Originally Posted by god child
You can't put this rules system in place then pretend that anyone who exploits its flaws is at fault; it is the rules system which is at fault.
If you're trying to say that we need to find every possible loophole that exists and close it off so people can't enjoy rules exploitation, then I think we need to find a lawyer from the Eighth Layer of Hell to sort that one out.
Our rules are relatively simple. Yes, there are "loopholes" as you say. However, and I say this rather loudly, those who deliberately exploit what they believe to be a loophole in the system need to wake up; that's much like the act of a small child trying to say that since he told his little sister to get the cookies, he shouldn't be in trouble for eating them.
Something as simple as making infraction last for 2 years not 6 months or whatever it was would have sufficed to close the loophole. Instead of doing-so, admin/mod just let them continue racking up infractions which had no effect under the rules, then arbitrarily dropped the hammer when they had had enough.
In other words, you know better, let's not make life harder than it already is.
You always play this game. Rather than actually giving reasons, you just say "we both know I'm right, stop pretending, lalala." Obviously I disagree with you about some fundamentaly aspects of what happenned, and brushing it off as an attempt to troll might allow you to ignore the issue, but it doesn't deal with it.
KCW knew that the penalty for coming back under a different username was banning. Anyone who has ever bothered to look through the Suspended/Banned list knows this. IF that''s not enough, he managed to rack up more infractions while he was back. I think he did a great job of demonstrating that he can't follow the rules.
In the past, members have been able to im admin and discuss returning after being banned, given enough time and a belief that they have changed thier behaviour. Obviously in paffim's case given the debate infractions, this wasn't the case, but the option still needs to be present.
Never said you were attempting to troll, never implied it either. I'm not attempting to ignore the issue, either, or I wouldn't be responding to your posts.
Nor am I trying to say "I'm right, you're wrong". I'm trying to explain things, but you are not accepting that explanation. That, of course, is your right. You don't have to accept it.
You disagree with my interpretation of this situation. That is also just fine and dandy; I like a good debate as well as anyone else. If everyone agreed about everything, what purpose would a discussion board have?
The quote you keep on mentioning is true. There was no dislike or bias involved in the banning of those two. It was considered before it was implemented. It wasn't a witch hunt. It wasn't arbitrary. It was based upon past conduct records, which exist and are kept current.
If you really want to look at it that way, isn't everything contingent upon mod/admin approval and disapproval? That's why we choose moderators rather than draw from a hat. We have to use our best judgement on certain situations. Now, that judgement doesn't always coincide with the desires of whoever's getting the punishment, but it's assumed that since we were trusted with the job, our judgement should be sufficient in most cases. If anyone has issues with mod action, there are avenues to take (as stated in many other threads).
We consult with each other as well; I've done it any number of times, because it's best to have another mind to bounce things off of in a case where you aren't absolutely sure.
Something as simple as making infraction last for 2 years not 6 months or whatever it was would have sufficed to close the loophole. Instead of doing-so, admin/mod just let them continue racking up infractions which had no effect under the rules, then arbitrarily dropped the hammer when they had had enough.
You can choose to believe it was arbitrary. That doesn't make it the truth, but I can't make you believe something you don't want to believe.
You always play this game. Rather than actually giving reasons, you just say "we both know I'm right, stop pretending, lalala." Obviously I disagree with you about some fundamentaly aspects of what happenned, and brushing it off as an attempt to troll might allow you to ignore the issue, but it doesn't deal with it.
I'm playing nothing. I've given you reasons; you have chosen to disregard them as false. Nothing much I can do about that.
Edit:
In the past, members have been able to im admin and discuss returning after being banned, given enough time and a belief that they have changed thier behaviour. Obviously in paffim's case given the debate infractions, this wasn't the case, but the option still needs to be present.
I am willing to speak to any previously banned member who wishes to speak with me regarding their banning. I can't promise it'll do any good, but I will listen with an open mind and bring it up to the rest of the staff.
And yes, no incantatrix for you. Or anyone. That class makes puppies cry. Mostly because they are the former Big Bads who have been Baleful Polymorphed into said puppies. By you. Because you're an incantatrix.
Quote from Yukora »
This is Deraxas we're talking about.
Remember, the girl that just killed an aspect of herself before literally consuming her?
Yeah, I don't see her handling a pissing match in any way other than a duel.
Quote from RedDwarfian »
Yes mistress...
Quote from About epic-level D&D »
There are only so many epic, psuedonatural barbarian/blackguard half-dragon akutenshai vampire balor paragons they can throw at you, right?
Quote from Concerning breeding habits of humans in fantasy games »
I suppose it's true. Though the logistics implied in a human/Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon pairing makes me shudder.
...Something tells me that even should all arcane casters in the world unite, that the Grease spell would NOT be sufficient.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I ask because of the recent banning of Paffim/kcw. He clearly wants to be here, and he's clearly shown himself capable of behaving himself. The reasons for banning him were, frankly, sketchy to begin with, but more importantly, they aren't really relevant anymore, or at least, they don't need to be.
I don't feel incredibly strongly on this subject, so if it just isn't going to happen, I'll drop it, but I think it would be a good thing for the site. I may agree with almost nothing he says, but his posts are useful and well-thought-out contributions, and to my knowledge (reviewing his posts for red text), he has never received an infraction since December.
Maybe a "don't ask, don't tell" policy would be okay, at least for the first time? I mean, clearly Kroen is going to get banned no matter how many times he comes back, so permabanning makes sense, but Paffim seems to demonstrate that it should be possible to relent in at least a few cases.
[I admit I have an ulterior motive. I want kcw to come play Mafia. We need a good replacement for a couple games.]
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
Added bonus: we're holding a songwriting contest in march with a registry drive going on right now! Check it out, plus the opportunity to earn $50!
Like freeform roleplaying? Try Darkness Befalls Us
Ryttare Kelasin Luna Orelinalei
I agree with Alacar. It's not so much of a "Well, maybe it could have been a suspension", but a "Well, what about every other banned member!?". I'm also not too sure of the details involved in that banning, as I was also a little surprised, but I have lots of faith in our awesome moderators. [/kissass]
Art Page
Alters for sale
Thanks to the guys at Highlight Studios for the great banner and avatar.
Trade with me http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=101483&highlight=" rel="nofollow"here.
Well, for one, Paffim can behave. And for two, that's why I suggested the whole "don't ask, don't tell" idea. If no one knows when a banned member has come back, there's nothing to get up in arms about.
A lot of people post here while at work, just because they don't have anything better to do. I know I, for one, would go insane if I couldn't post here or somewhere very similar.
Regardless, kcw was gone for quite a while before Paffim showed up, so this argument doesn't really apply.
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
In other words, by creating Paffim, kcw has shown that he's still unwilling to hold to our rules and deserves to remain banned.
Making a new account after 1 year or so of being gone could be anything from simple forgetfulness about what's required to not wanting to dredge up history which shouldn't matter anymore.
The point is that Paffim, as a unique person from kcw, never did anything banworthy (or even infraction-worthy, AFAIK) despite having been given literally hundreds of opportunities to do so. You can't fairly say that Paffim is "unwilling to hold to our rules," given that evidence. Just because that evidence wouldn't exist under normal circumstances doesn't mean it shouldn't be given any weight.
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
Paffim had two active infractions from the Debate forum at the time he was determined to be KCW.
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
Well, that's not really my decision to make; that would be the admins and/or Hannes.
But as for me? No, I don't see any reason he should be allowed back.
When people get banned, it's for a reason. We don't arbitrarily decide that someone gets banned merely because we don't like them, or we disagree with them, or anything like that.
People get banned because they break the site rules. In kcw's case, he had done so, repeatedly, playing the existing system to avoid banning by using time limits of infractions. That is clearly against the rules, and so, after being given a bunch of chances, he finally got banned.
Banned does not mean "go away until no one remembers you". Banned means "You have exhausted the chances we have given you, and you have proven yourself to be unreceptive to the requests of the staff for you to conform to the rules. I'm sorry, but you are no longer welcome here."
That is my point of view, at least. I can't speak for urzassedatives and Lesurgo on this point.
"I am in the arcane, and the arcane is in me."
Official Matron Mother of Clan Planar Chaos
Awesome Avatar and signature by DarkNightCavalier
Deraxas, Dark Maiden of Shimia,, still oddly obsessed with a mindmage.
iirc this is exactly what happened with kcw and butteblues. sure they had many infractions but it required a judgement call of "enough is enough" rather than the rules strictly stating that they had enough infractions in a specific period of time to be banned.
Can I ask everyone a question: if this thread had all instances of the name "kcw" replaced with the name "Kroen", would it be here?
I don't personally have a problem with kcw. Never did. I don't take the handing out of warnings/infractions/suspensions/bannings personally; that isn't my job.
Enforcing the site rules is. Sometimes, even I disagree with a rule. I still enforce it. You guys have just as much right to ask for a rules review as I do; remember, it wasn't all that long ago when we had the thread here regarding just that, and everyone gave input, and some was even implemented.
Note that I'd REALLY appreciate it if you sent requests for a rules review to my inbox rather than post it here.
"I am in the arcane, and the arcane is in me."
Official Matron Mother of Clan Planar Chaos
Awesome Avatar and signature by DarkNightCavalier
Deraxas, Dark Maiden of Shimia,, still oddly obsessed with a mindmage.
obviously paffim should have been banned. that was clear cut. i'm saying that at the time that kcw and butteblues were banned, they didn't meet any explicit criteria, merely administrator discretion.
Only because they played the system. They would get warnings and infractions until they were on the cusp of a long suspension and then pull back a bit until some punishments expire then went back at it. They were both consistently misbehaving and were cagey enough to not get suspended for it, so in that respect I can understand why administrator discretion was involved here.
And note that this comes from a longtime supporter of both of them.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
yes, that is exactly what happened. Technically speaking, they didn't break the rules enough to get banned, but moderation team at the time - "When people get banned, it's for a reason. We don't arbitrarily decide that someone gets banned merely because we don't like them, or we disagree with them, or anything like that." - just didn't like kcw and bb.
that was my point; not that they should or shouldn't have been banned, but that what aok said wasn't true in the particular case of kcw and bb.
In that situation, it was perfectly clear to the moderation team that the two users in question were abusing the system. They broke enough rules to get banned thrice over; I've read the user notes, infraction histories, and whatnot- it was painfully clear that they deserved a banning as a result of their own actions long before that ban ever took place.
Or are you trying to say that working the system is a viable way to get around being banned?
I really hope you don't believe that; we keep a closer record of who gets suspended these days, and clear patterns of the same behavior tell me that whoever's been getting twelve infractions for flaming probably doesn't get it. We even have extended suspensions; there are several users on their three-month vacation from MTGSally.
"I am in the arcane, and the arcane is in me."
Official Matron Mother of Clan Planar Chaos
Awesome Avatar and signature by DarkNightCavalier
Deraxas, Dark Maiden of Shimia,, still oddly obsessed with a mindmage.
If the rules had stated that anyone who gets a 10th warning in a 5 year period will be banned, then they wouldn't have been banned. Edit: because they would have changed thier behaviour.
You can't put this rules system in place then pretend that anyone who exploits its flaws is at fault; it is the rules system which is at fault.
I still miss the cat with the drink though.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
No, if he hadn't recieve special treatment he wouldn't have been banned. Assuming you are talking about kcw not paffim.
Rules exist for a reason. I think we agree on this point.
If you break the rules, you recieve penalties. We agree here as well.
If someone has shown that they break the rules in such a way as to circumvent said penalties, then they are abusing the rules system, which breaks the rules. See #2. This is implied to everyone, and I feel that almost any user would agree that someone who does this is obviously flipping the staff the virtual "birdie" when doing this.
That's where this discussion seems to be breaking down; apparently, you see nothing wroing with exploiting the existing system so that you do as you will until you are within arm's reach of a banning, and then stay clean for however long it takes for it to wear off. Things like that don't fly, not in my book, as I see it as more than simple rules violation; it's a slap in the face to those who take the time to enforce these rules and keep this site from degenerating into chaos.
They were given multiple chances to change their behavior. It didn't stay changed. They reverted to old habits, even though they knew better.
The last line you posted:
If you're trying to say that we need to find every possible loophole that exists and close it off so people can't enjoy rules exploitation, then I think we need to find a lawyer from the Eighth Layer of Hell to sort that one out.
Our rules are relatively simple. Yes, there are "loopholes" as you say. However, and I say this rather loudly, those who deliberately exploit what they believe to be a loophole in the system need to wake up; that's much like the act of a small child trying to say that since he told his little sister to get the cookies, he shouldn't be in trouble for eating them.
In other words, you know better, let's not make life harder than it already is.
"I am in the arcane, and the arcane is in me."
Official Matron Mother of Clan Planar Chaos
Awesome Avatar and signature by DarkNightCavalier
Deraxas, Dark Maiden of Shimia,, still oddly obsessed with a mindmage.
Thanks to the guys at Highlight Studios for the great banner and avatar.
Trade with me http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=101483&highlight=" rel="nofollow"here.
It isn't about whether I see anything wrong or not. It is about this quote of yours: "When people get banned, it's for a reason. We don't arbitrarily decide that someone gets banned merely because we don't like them, or we disagree with them, or anything like that." The decision was made that while technically kcw and bb couldn't be banned under the rules, admin/mod disapproval of thier behaviour was reason enough.
Something as simple as making infraction last for 2 years not 6 months or whatever it was would have sufficed to close the loophole. Instead of doing-so, admin/mod just let them continue racking up infractions which had no effect under the rules, then arbitrarily dropped the hammer when they had had enough.
You always play this game. Rather than actually giving reasons, you just say "we both know I'm right, stop pretending, lalala." Obviously I disagree with you about some fundamentaly aspects of what happenned, and brushing it off as an attempt to troll might allow you to ignore the issue, but it doesn't deal with it.
And life isn't hard; life is the best.
Edit:
In the past, members have been able to im admin and discuss returning after being banned, given enough time and a belief that they have changed thier behaviour. Obviously in paffim's case given the debate infractions, this wasn't the case, but the option still needs to be present.
Nor am I trying to say "I'm right, you're wrong". I'm trying to explain things, but you are not accepting that explanation. That, of course, is your right. You don't have to accept it.
You disagree with my interpretation of this situation. That is also just fine and dandy; I like a good debate as well as anyone else. If everyone agreed about everything, what purpose would a discussion board have?
The quote you keep on mentioning is true. There was no dislike or bias involved in the banning of those two. It was considered before it was implemented. It wasn't a witch hunt. It wasn't arbitrary. It was based upon past conduct records, which exist and are kept current.
If you really want to look at it that way, isn't everything contingent upon mod/admin approval and disapproval? That's why we choose moderators rather than draw from a hat. We have to use our best judgement on certain situations. Now, that judgement doesn't always coincide with the desires of whoever's getting the punishment, but it's assumed that since we were trusted with the job, our judgement should be sufficient in most cases. If anyone has issues with mod action, there are avenues to take (as stated in many other threads).
We consult with each other as well; I've done it any number of times, because it's best to have another mind to bounce things off of in a case where you aren't absolutely sure.
You can choose to believe it was arbitrary. That doesn't make it the truth, but I can't make you believe something you don't want to believe.
I'm playing nothing. I've given you reasons; you have chosen to disregard them as false. Nothing much I can do about that.
Edit:
I am willing to speak to any previously banned member who wishes to speak with me regarding their banning. I can't promise it'll do any good, but I will listen with an open mind and bring it up to the rest of the staff.
"I am in the arcane, and the arcane is in me."
Official Matron Mother of Clan Planar Chaos
Awesome Avatar and signature by DarkNightCavalier
Deraxas, Dark Maiden of Shimia,, still oddly obsessed with a mindmage.