"There was no dislike or bias involved in the banning of those two."
If you honestly believe that admin dislike for kcw and bb played no part in the decision to ban them, then there is no point continuing this discussion. It would be like trying to tell a priest that god doesn't exist.
So, lmk. If you are willing to accept that personal opinion of kcw and bb played a part, then we can get started again. Otherwise I'll just crawl back to my little cave.
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.
I was really kind of hoping not to have the discussion of whether or not kcw's banning was justified or not. It isn't really relevant to the point of the thread.
If you want to say that the enforcement of the rules of the forums should be run so that everyone knows what the immediate consequences of their conduct will be, then it obviously was not justified, because the banning came out of the blue. If you want to say that the enforcement of the rules of the forum should be run so that all misconduct is punished, regardless of what the rules actually say, then kcw's ban was clearly justified.
It's a matter of opinion, and the only opinions that matter are those of the admins.
The point I was trying to make with the thread is that as long as kcw knows where he stands, he's shown himself to be capable of handling himself. And I, personally, don't see anything wrong with having that kind of person around.
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.
Yeah, but you punish the brother as though he really did take the cookies, not as if he did something worse. You don't take him out back and shoot him and pretend he never existed (at least, I hope not). Again, I'm not saying he wasn't banworthy under one view of the rules (which I don't share), just that this is a bad example.
EDIT: I should clarify that my point is that banning kcw was a decision based on his attempts to work around the system, which, while not against the rules, was certainly a problem. kcw was NOT banned for any of the reasons that mods generally ban people without having to make tenuous judgment calls.
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.'
I was really kind of hoping not to have the discussion of whether or not kcw's banning was justified or not. It isn't really relevant to the point of the thread.
If you want to say that the enforcement of the rules of the forums should be run so that everyone knows what the immediate consequences of their conduct will be, then it obviously was not justified, because the banning came out of the blue. If you want to say that the enforcement of the rules of the forum should be run so that all misconduct is punished, regardless of what the rules actually say, then kcw's ban was clearly justified.
It's a matter of opinion, and the only opinions that matter are those of the admins.
The point I was trying to make with the thread is that as long as kcw knows where he stands, he's shown himself to be capable of handling himself. And I, personally, don't see anything wrong with having that kind of person around.
I kind of expected the issue to come up, myself.
That was well-said, carrion_pigeons. As I stated before, I didn't have a personal issue with him. I try very hard to distance myself from personal issues when I put on my admin hat. I can't say that I have to be fair, because fairness means different things to different people. I will say that I try to be neutral when making a decision. I wasn't even an admin when those bannings occurred...or if I was, it was at the very start.
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.
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 very idea of banning a person is to ensure that they don't come back to us. Why should we let people come back under a ban through the use of an alternate account? You speak of banning, and of "permabanning," but fail to see that there is only one flavor. This isn't a suspension, another punishment we utilize, this is full-on expulsion. If you'd like us to reconsider a ban with proper evidence, you may call for it, but until the ban is lifted, you cannot come back. It's the entire purpose of a ban. The idea of soft banishment and hard banishment undermines the idea of banishment in general.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[The Crafters] | [Johnnies United]
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours! EXPLAIN THAT!
Xenphire got unbanned once on probation. Then got banned again.
So It is feasible. I guess as long as the person is willing to go by the rules it'd be fine, but it's up to the mods I guess. I thought TFE's banning was unjustified when it first happened (which it was, really, they made up rules to apply specifically to him) but he went ahead and used gimmick accounts over and over and over and yeah. The whole "CA ATTACKS ON MTGS AAAGH" drama was all a bit much too.
But still, it seems like it would cause problems. If KCW was unbanned, it would spark a whole "well, what about butteblues? TFE? kroen?". And that'd be stressful for the mods and pointless overall.
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.
This makes MTGSalvation better than RealMTG in that respect. Heck, we banned a guy named 'BecauseICanGetAroundBans' out of speculation alone...
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!
The very idea of banning a person is to ensure that they don't come back to us. Why should we let people come back under a ban through the use of an alternate account? You speak of banning, and of "permabanning," but fail to see that there is only one flavor. This isn't a suspension, another punishment we utilize, this is full-on expulsion. If you'd like us to reconsider a ban with proper evidence, you may call for it, but until the ban is lifted, you cannot come back. It's the entire purpose of a ban. The idea of soft banishment and hard banishment undermines the idea of banishment in general.
Regarding the bold: No it isn't. The point of a ban is to stop a certain type of behaviour from occuring on our forum, and is instituted because we believe that the user is unwilling or unable to change thier behaviour patterns. If, however, a user can show that they have mended thier ways then there should be no reason why they cannot rejoin.
To put it another way, we shouldn't be forever condemning someone for their past actions and ignoring the possibility of change, especially on a forums where a great many of the users quite young.
To put it another way, we shouldn't be forever condemning someone for their past actions and ignoring the possibility of change, especially on a forums where a great many of the users quite young.
When you're banned, you're gone. Kaput. Outta here. Forever. Even if we don't remember exactly why or what led up to the banning, that means something--that means you couldn't be reasonable enough to follow the rules. Even if you or others come back saying 'they've learned their lesson', by the time it gets to the point of banning, they should've learned their lesson. It's not like we ban people left and right around here willy-nilly. That's what suspensions/infractions/warnings are for.
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.
I find this idea offensive.
This goes against the very spirit of why rules were first written down. There is nothing more upsetting to me than 'unwritten rules' that give special privileged to people other people think are 'cool.'
I do not mind when exceptions are made for people that do not know what's going on, and are new.(like a verbal warning for your first time offense)
I do not have any opinion on if kcw should be allowed back or not, but if he is, it should not be done as some cloak and dagger thing. The point of a rule is that everyone can read it and understand it, they are not to be window dressing that have no real meaning if the people in change like you or something.
"We should not tell the public we are giving X some extra Y, it might upset them."
I remember reading an article that Hannes wrote about the prices of the upkeep of the site. If banned members want to come back, (even Lance & Jay-C) that would be fine with me. Just make them pay. Make this site a paysite to banned members. Make it when if they got banned again it would cost more to register, after paying the first time. That is the only way I would see unbanning members would help the site.
The very idea of banning a person is to ensure that they don't come back to us. Why should we let people come back under a ban through the use of an alternate account? You speak of banning, and of "permabanning," but fail to see that there is only one flavor. This isn't a suspension, another punishment we utilize, this is full-on expulsion. If you'd like us to reconsider a ban with proper evidence, you may call for it, but until the ban is lifted, you cannot come back. It's the entire purpose of a ban. The idea of soft banishment and hard banishment undermines the idea of banishment in general.
I disagree pretty much completely with this post. If we're going to ban people based on special cases, we should also be able to unban people on special cases. We're talking about people, here. They change, they have emotions.
As for whether or not kcw, specifically, deserves this treatment, I'd like him back, but I don't insist that he deserves that privilege. That's not my decision to make. But it isn't yours, either.
But still, it seems like it would cause problems. If KCW was unbanned, it would spark a whole "well, what about butteblues? TFE? kroen?". And that'd be stressful for the mods and pointless overall.
Special cases are called special cases for a reason. Just as AoK said above, loopholes aren't there to be exploited. If kcw were to be unbanned, it would be because his specific case was carefully considered, not (just) because he just happened to be a popular member of the site, once.
When you're banned, you're gone. Kaput. Outta here. Forever. Even if we don't remember exactly why or what led up to the banning, that means something--that means you couldn't be reasonable enough to follow the rules. Even if you or others come back saying 'they've learned their lesson', by the time it gets to the point of banning, they should've learned their lesson. It's not like we ban people left and right around here willy-nilly. That's what suspensions/infractions/warnings are for.
As with Zith above, this post suggests that punishment is your priority, rather than making the site as good as possible. kcw wasn't banned under the rules (though Paffim was, which admittedly complicates things), so using the logic that he can't come back under the rules doesn't wash.
There are reasons why him coming back might not be practical or desirable, but this isn't one of them.
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.'
Well, When I go home, I'll be on a new computer in a new country in a new house. So I will prove you guys wrong! I'll get banned and make a new name at home and you fools will never know! MUAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!
MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
Well, not really, I like this screen name, its badass.
Anyways, I think the reasons for the banning should be looked at. Sure, once you are banned you are supposed to be banned for ever. But what if you got banned for something ridiculously stupid? What if the mods are like "oops, we guess that was a too harsh punishment, lets bring him back". I think that is what needs to take place here if the mods are to find a loophole in thier golden rules.
So the question should not be "hey unbann paffim because we like him and hes a cool guy, and he can behave, and he has shown this this and that". It should be "hey you buttholes banned paffin for an inconcievably stupid reason, plz unbann ftw k?"
But I guess the reason is top secret? There wont be any deliberation on this subject huh? You guys already shredded the evidence and everything huh? tisk tisk.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
INTO THE RAY OF THE SUN, MARCH OUR HERO, HUNTING THE DARKLORD, REBORN FROM THE BLOOD OF HIS GOD... HIS GOD... THE WARMASTER KRON.
RIDE FOR THE FALL OF HIS POWER FIGHTING THE STORM, THE ROAR OF THE THUNDER, ALLY OF THE SUN AND THE MOON... GREAT SWORDMASTER RULE!
Well, When I go home, I'll be on a new computer in a new country in a new house. So I will prove you guys wrong! I'll get banned and make a new name at home and you fools will never know! MUAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!
MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
Well, not really, I like this screen name, its badass.
Anyways, I think the reasons for the banning should be looked at. Sure, once you are banned you are supposed to be banned for ever. But what if you got banned for something ridiculously stupid? What if the mods are like "oops, we guess that was a too harsh punishment, lets bring him back". I think that is what needs to take place here if the mods are to find a loophole in thier golden rules.
So the question should not be "hey unbann paffim because we like him and hes a cool guy, and he can behave, and he has shown this this and that". It should be "hey you buttholes banned paffin for an inconcievably stupid reason, plz unbann ftw k?"
But I guess the reason is top secret? There wont be any deliberation on this subject huh? You guys already shredded the evidence and everything huh? tisk tisk.
Define "ridiculously or inconceivably stupid", please.
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.
Define "ridiculously or inconceivably stupid", please.
I just saw a locked thread about him. It said he was some other guy who got banned before.
Anyways "ridiculously or inconceivably stupid" could be anything. I didnt know why he was banned, so that was a "theory post". You tell me. I'm sure you mods would never think it possible to ban somebody for a stuipd reason, but I'm sure there could be a slipup somewhere.
As for kcw/paffim, I don't really care. My point is, if people want to get him unbanned, there no way around a banning, unless you can prove that the reason for banning was unconstitutional by your rules. Am I right?
Or can you just banhammer whoever you want for any reason? Of course not, because people would stop coming to this site and it would fall like a house of cards. (haha cards).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
INTO THE RAY OF THE SUN, MARCH OUR HERO, HUNTING THE DARKLORD, REBORN FROM THE BLOOD OF HIS GOD... HIS GOD... THE WARMASTER KRON.
RIDE FOR THE FALL OF HIS POWER FIGHTING THE STORM, THE ROAR OF THE THUNDER, ALLY OF THE SUN AND THE MOON... GREAT SWORDMASTER RULE!
Anyways "ridiculously or inconceivably stupid" could be anything. I didnt know why he was banned, so that was a "theory post". You tell me. I'm sure you mods would never think it possible to ban somebody for a stuipd reason, but I'm sure there could be a slipup somewhere.
I don't think anyone quite comprehends just how tough it is to get the staff to ban you. Especially with new new policy of extended suspensions. If we as a staff (and for most bannings, we discuss it prior to the final decision) decide to ban you, there are some serious reasons for it. There's so many checks involved with a ban that no, I don't believe it's possible for a slipup like that (a ban for 'stupid' reasons) to happen without someone calling shenanigans in the Mod Lounge.
As for a case being made for kcw's unbanning, if I had any indication that he had wanted to return and there was merit in that return, I would have lobbied for him. At the time of his banning, however, I was under the impression that he was about done with the site anyway. Nothing since then had given me reason to think otherwise. I don't think now that he tried the old 'gimmick while banned' trick a realistic case can even be made for his ban being lifted. The Paffim gimmick only showed that kcw didn't want to follow the rules. So a battle that was already epically uphill (I speak here of arguing for an unbanning) is now all but impossible since the staff now has every reason to suspect that nothing's changed. Which is a damn shame because I miss kcw.
SatanicWarmaster - I mean no offense by this, but you are literally walking into a situation that you know nothing about. If you truly wish to come to an understanding about the nature of KCW's banning, and you aren't lazy, you need to go to the archived threads.
I can't remember exactly, but I believe the thread had at least fifty pages of discussion in it.
If you really are curious about this, then check it out.
As with Zith above, this post suggests that punishment is your priority, rather than making the site as good as possible. kcw wasn't banned under the rules (though Paffim was, which admittedly complicates things), so using the logic that he can't come back under the rules doesn't wash.
Steadfast rules-following is the priority, and I'd say that kcw was banned under the rules if we allow for something akin to constitutional interpretation on the admin/mod team - which I think is completely reasonable so long as it's transparent. And we must punish, else MTGS users lose respect for punishment altogether and fall to anarchy. To allow people to come back on good behavior is to allow all users become nuisances to the point of banning at least once. I say no to this, and say that the suspension rules are sufficient.
Are you against the idea of banning in general? You can't really have it both ways, you know - either we ban people or we don't. Banishment isn't a light punishment, nor is it handed out lightly. We have mediating punishments through which bad behavior can be rectified. People change, sure, but only so much.
I could see bans expiring after something like 15-20 years, but if you think this site will be around and remembered by any banned individual... I think you're mistaken.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[The Crafters] | [Johnnies United]
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours! EXPLAIN THAT!
Steadfast rules-following is the priority, and I'd say that kcw was banned under the rules if we allow for something akin to constitutional interpretation on the admin/mod team - which I think is completely reasonable so long as it's transparent. And we must punish, else MTGS users lose respect for punishment altogether and fall to anarchy. To allow people to come back on good behavior is to allow all users become nuisances to the point of banning at least once. I say no to this, and say that the suspension rules are sufficient.
Are you against the idea of banning in general? You can't really have it both ways, you know - either we ban people or we don't. Banishment isn't a light punishment, nor is it handed out lightly. We have mediating punishments through which bad behavior can be rectified. People change, sure, but only so much.
I could see bans expiring after something like 15-20 years, but if you think this site will be around and remembered by any banned individual... I think you're mistaken.
at the time kcw was banned there was no policy of intstituting lengthy suspensions (i.e. 2+ months)
I believe a six-month ban, 9 times out of 10, is better than a ban because most users won't repeat there mistakes if they come back after a 6 month vacation.
I believe a six-month ban, 9 times out of 10, is better than a ban because most users won't repeat there mistakes if they come back after a 6 month vacation.
The jury's still out on that one. You're probably right in some cases, but we're only just now seeing some of our first extended suspensions (4+ months) end, so the staff will get some examples of how much the extended vacations are making a difference.
The jury's still out on that one. You're probably right in some cases, but we're only just now seeing some of our first extended suspensions (4+ months) end, so the staff will get some examples of how much the extended vacations are making a difference.
indeed. If it does turn out to be a success then surely members who were banned a year or more ago before this policy was instated should be able to apply to rejoin?
The best I can tell you about that is that we can discuss it, and let you know the results of our discussion.
It's certainly not out of line for you to suggest that.
First, though, we need to see the results. If the extended suspensions prove to be as successful as we have hoped, then it could be more feasible to consider this.
I can't promise you anything, though.
Note that I'm not saying that anyone's chance (or lack thereof) is dependent upon any one person's behavior; it's the entire experiment of extended suspensions as a whole that we're looking at.
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.
If you honestly believe that admin dislike for kcw and bb played no part in the decision to ban them, then there is no point continuing this discussion. It would be like trying to tell a priest that god doesn't exist.
So, lmk. If you are willing to accept that personal opinion of kcw and bb played a part, then we can get started again. Otherwise I'll just crawl back to my little cave.
"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 you want to say that the enforcement of the rules of the forums should be run so that everyone knows what the immediate consequences of their conduct will be, then it obviously was not justified, because the banning came out of the blue. If you want to say that the enforcement of the rules of the forum should be run so that all misconduct is punished, regardless of what the rules actually say, then kcw's ban was clearly justified.
It's a matter of opinion, and the only opinions that matter are those of the admins.
The point I was trying to make with the thread is that as long as kcw knows where he stands, he's shown himself to be capable of handling himself. And I, personally, don't see anything wrong with having that kind of person around.
Yeah, but you punish the brother as though he really did take the cookies, not as if he did something worse. You don't take him out back and shoot him and pretend he never existed (at least, I hope not). Again, I'm not saying he wasn't banworthy under one view of the rules (which I don't share), just that this is a bad example.
EDIT: I should clarify that my point is that banning kcw was a decision based on his attempts to work around the system, which, while not against the rules, was certainly a problem. kcw was NOT banned for any of the reasons that mods generally ban people without having to make tenuous judgment calls.
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
I kind of expected the issue to come up, myself.
That was well-said, carrion_pigeons. As I stated before, I didn't have a personal issue with him. I try very hard to distance myself from personal issues when I put on my admin hat. I can't say that I have to be fair, because fairness means different things to different people. I will say that I try to be neutral when making a decision. I wasn't even an admin when those bannings occurred...or if I was, it was at the very start.
"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.
This is discussed above.
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
So It is feasible. I guess as long as the person is willing to go by the rules it'd be fine, but it's up to the mods I guess. I thought TFE's banning was unjustified when it first happened (which it was, really, they made up rules to apply specifically to him) but he went ahead and used gimmick accounts over and over and over and yeah. The whole "CA ATTACKS ON MTGS AAAGH" drama was all a bit much too.
But still, it seems like it would cause problems. If KCW was unbanned, it would spark a whole "well, what about butteblues? TFE? kroen?". And that'd be stressful for the mods and pointless overall.
This makes MTGSalvation better than RealMTG in that respect. Heck, we banned a guy named 'BecauseICanGetAroundBans' out of speculation alone...
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!
Regarding the bold: No it isn't. The point of a ban is to stop a certain type of behaviour from occuring on our forum, and is instituted because we believe that the user is unwilling or unable to change thier behaviour patterns. If, however, a user can show that they have mended thier ways then there should be no reason why they cannot rejoin.
To put it another way, we shouldn't be forever condemning someone for their past actions and ignoring the possibility of change, especially on a forums where a great many of the users quite young.
Like freeform roleplaying? Try Darkness Befalls Us
Ryttare Kelasin Luna Orelinalei
This goes against the very spirit of why rules were first written down. There is nothing more upsetting to me than 'unwritten rules' that give special privileged to people other people think are 'cool.'
I do not mind when exceptions are made for people that do not know what's going on, and are new.(like a verbal warning for your first time offense)
I do not have any opinion on if kcw should be allowed back or not, but if he is, it should not be done as some cloak and dagger thing. The point of a rule is that everyone can read it and understand it, they are not to be window dressing that have no real meaning if the people in change like you or something.
"We should not tell the public we are giving X some extra Y, it might upset them."
I disagree pretty much completely with this post. If we're going to ban people based on special cases, we should also be able to unban people on special cases. We're talking about people, here. They change, they have emotions.
As for whether or not kcw, specifically, deserves this treatment, I'd like him back, but I don't insist that he deserves that privilege. That's not my decision to make. But it isn't yours, either.
Special cases are called special cases for a reason. Just as AoK said above, loopholes aren't there to be exploited. If kcw were to be unbanned, it would be because his specific case was carefully considered, not (just) because he just happened to be a popular member of the site, once.
As with Zith above, this post suggests that punishment is your priority, rather than making the site as good as possible. kcw wasn't banned under the rules (though Paffim was, which admittedly complicates things), so using the logic that he can't come back under the rules doesn't wash.
There are reasons why him coming back might not be practical or desirable, but this isn't one of them.
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
Well, not really, I like this screen name, its badass.
Anyways, I think the reasons for the banning should be looked at. Sure, once you are banned you are supposed to be banned for ever. But what if you got banned for something ridiculously stupid? What if the mods are like "oops, we guess that was a too harsh punishment, lets bring him back". I think that is what needs to take place here if the mods are to find a loophole in thier golden rules.
So the question should not be "hey unbann paffim because we like him and hes a cool guy, and he can behave, and he has shown this this and that". It should be "hey you buttholes banned paffin for an inconcievably stupid reason, plz unbann ftw k?"
But I guess the reason is top secret? There wont be any deliberation on this subject huh? You guys already shredded the evidence and everything huh? tisk tisk.
RIDE FOR THE FALL OF HIS POWER FIGHTING THE STORM, THE ROAR OF THE THUNDER, ALLY OF THE SUN AND THE MOON... GREAT SWORDMASTER RULE!
Define "ridiculously or inconceivably stupid", please.
"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.
I just saw a locked thread about him. It said he was some other guy who got banned before.
Anyways "ridiculously or inconceivably stupid" could be anything. I didnt know why he was banned, so that was a "theory post". You tell me. I'm sure you mods would never think it possible to ban somebody for a stuipd reason, but I'm sure there could be a slipup somewhere.
As for kcw/paffim, I don't really care. My point is, if people want to get him unbanned, there no way around a banning, unless you can prove that the reason for banning was unconstitutional by your rules. Am I right?
Or can you just banhammer whoever you want for any reason? Of course not, because people would stop coming to this site and it would fall like a house of cards. (haha cards).
RIDE FOR THE FALL OF HIS POWER FIGHTING THE STORM, THE ROAR OF THE THUNDER, ALLY OF THE SUN AND THE MOON... GREAT SWORDMASTER RULE!
I don't think anyone quite comprehends just how tough it is to get the staff to ban you. Especially with new new policy of extended suspensions. If we as a staff (and for most bannings, we discuss it prior to the final decision) decide to ban you, there are some serious reasons for it. There's so many checks involved with a ban that no, I don't believe it's possible for a slipup like that (a ban for 'stupid' reasons) to happen without someone calling shenanigans in the Mod Lounge.
As for a case being made for kcw's unbanning, if I had any indication that he had wanted to return and there was merit in that return, I would have lobbied for him. At the time of his banning, however, I was under the impression that he was about done with the site anyway. Nothing since then had given me reason to think otherwise. I don't think now that he tried the old 'gimmick while banned' trick a realistic case can even be made for his ban being lifted. The Paffim gimmick only showed that kcw didn't want to follow the rules. So a battle that was already epically uphill (I speak here of arguing for an unbanning) is now all but impossible since the staff now has every reason to suspect that nothing's changed. Which is a damn shame because I miss kcw.
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
I can't remember exactly, but I believe the thread had at least fifty pages of discussion in it.
If you really are curious about this, then check it out.
Are you against the idea of banning in general? You can't really have it both ways, you know - either we ban people or we don't. Banishment isn't a light punishment, nor is it handed out lightly. We have mediating punishments through which bad behavior can be rectified. People change, sure, but only so much.
I could see bans expiring after something like 15-20 years, but if you think this site will be around and remembered by any banned individual... I think you're mistaken.
at the time kcw was banned there was no policy of intstituting lengthy suspensions (i.e. 2+ months)
I believe a six-month ban, 9 times out of 10, is better than a ban because most users won't repeat there mistakes if they come back after a 6 month vacation.
The jury's still out on that one. You're probably right in some cases, but we're only just now seeing some of our first extended suspensions (4+ months) end, so the staff will get some examples of how much the extended vacations are making a difference.
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
indeed. If it does turn out to be a success then surely members who were banned a year or more ago before this policy was instated should be able to apply to rejoin?
It's certainly not out of line for you to suggest that.
First, though, we need to see the results. If the extended suspensions prove to be as successful as we have hoped, then it could be more feasible to consider this.
I can't promise you anything, though.
Note that I'm not saying that anyone's chance (or lack thereof) is dependent upon any one person's behavior; it's the entire experiment of extended suspensions as a whole that we're looking at.
"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.