Indiana's op Removal

I am mainly making this post on WBN because telling someone on IRC that someone should be removed from ops doesn't work and isn't convincing. So i've decided to post about what i think of indy's ops and i hope all reply to this post and give me their input.

Policy of .us - http://www.winbolo.us/policy.htm
Indiana's ops should be removed in #winbolo because:
- He doesn't follow the policy
- Doesn't know the policy
- Isn't respected by almost everyone in #winbolo ( I can list off more people that dislike him than more people that like him as an op)
- Doesn't even follow the rules as a normal player
- abuses power ( such as not leaving when told in passworded games )
- No one wants him to be an op, because they think he's an overrated asshole.

BTW indy- you dont warn people about what they have done wrong in #winbolo, you do it in PM. For example

http://winbolo.us/forum/viewtopic.php?t=83

In this post indy didn't even tell me about any script or anything, i hadn't even heard of what happened with renbot and the doh script. This illustrates that indiana doesn't know his own policy because, if he had read the policy he would have known that you must warn the person and ask them to take it down before you just go ban someone. FYI- Indy- i've had the idiot script for over 6 months, and no one but you have bullshited about it.
[19:38] <Ren> doh
[19:38] <Renbot> we have a Homer Simpson in the making!

- this is what indiana wanted to be banned for from #winbolo. Crazy huh?-

In the past Indiana has bullshitted about teams and become a real asshole and almost everyone has lost respect for him, this illustrates how he isn't respected for others.

Indiana also is very gullible which shouldn't let him keep his ops. For example he hears that someone cheated/broke the policy from one person and he threatens them they will be banned if they do it again, leaving the victim indiana is yelling at in confusion.
----------------------

Many people have agreed with me that indiana shouldn't have ops, rarely have i ever talked to someone who wanted indy's ops to be kept. Atleast when i was an op i followed the policy, no matter how much respect winboloers didn't have for me. Anyway, in conclusion i think indy's ops should be permantly takin away for the reasons above.

Another thing to keep in mind:
[19:19] <Ren> WTF HAS HE DONE FOR OUR COMMUNITY
[19:19] <Ren> jack shit
[19:19] <Ren> wtf has he done for winbolo

Ops should be someone who's respectful to others, is respected, can obey the policy, and someone who's done something for winbolo. Indiana relates to none of those things.

If you have something to say about Indiana and his ops, please speak out and give your opinions about indiana and his ops.

Okay, well i never take the time to post on WBN because i find it to be pointless, so for me to actually post is a big thing. I feel that this is a very crucial subject (hence why i AM posting) and should be taken seriously. I agree with Ren, and i am just glad that he spoke up and i hope everyone else will too. I know that nobody likes Indiana and none of u "Ops" find that to be a good removal reason, but Indiana causes more problems than any other Op i know of. He joins games, complains about teams until they benefit him, and even harasses people. I actually have been a victim of Indy's harassment before. Indiana needs to stop being immature and learn how to be an Op. Until then he will keep being immature and keep purposly bugging people. I feel he should be atleast talked to, if not suspended from Ops or removed. Thanks :!:

-----------------------------

<indiana> i love you ren.. oh yes i do.. i love ou ren.. it true so true.
<Ren> i love you too
<Ren> soo much i made a post about you
<indiana> i know! it your way of telling me you love me

cough*immaturity*cough :wink:

I have played bolo for many many years, and patiently awaited the arrival of winbolo. Since the creation of winbolo we have struggled though its development working with its many bugs, but nevertheless we have had many wonderful games.
On the other hand, a few of the operators on irc have caused even more problems for good players. All be praised to the moderators, creator, and veterans who are amazingly levelheaded, rational and fair in light of the continual drama in the chatroom. In the past the operator who comes to mind is Min, who many of us know was quite oppresive and banned some of the best players of the game, along with those malicious players who should be banned. Min has since changed and is still my friend.
I had not really played though irc.winbolo.us, however I recently experienced the same attitude and behavior in the new operator indiana. Though the few games that I have played with him, he has consistantly complained about teams, and insulted and attacked newer players. He has also recently banned a good player undeservingly, all the while maintaining an arrogant attitude and inconsideratly using his power as operator. Please see the post regarding Mad Scout's Ban and notice how Mad scout maintains a levelheaded rational chat, and how Indiana seems to maintain the "holier than thou" attitude.
I agree that he should no longer be an operator. Frankly I am sick and tired of the drama and denial of service caused by arrogant operators. I thank LRL for his server and being such a great moderator.

yikes, well mac, I'm unfortunatly going to have to defend myself against that ...... first off, when I was an operator, you were rude to me everychance you got, weither the reason was valid or otherwise. While I was just a regular ol' player, you were kind, helped my greatly, etc ..... just becuase a player is 'good' does not mean they are immune to punishment for doing things considered inappropriate, in many many instantces, I would punish something for doing something "bad" while you were not around, and you would FREAK at me when you came around ... because you felt and still do feel that noone who is a player should be removed from the chat room ..... I can recall one instance in particular when a player threatened to rape my wife, and kill my children ..... yet you defended him .... and yelled at me until eventually you got removed yourself ........ I don't support indiana, or his actions becuase I don't feel he has the capibility to act rationally, however, sometimes you have to understand that a person in a position of power is RIGHT for doing what they've done ... you have to TRUST that they've done it for reasons that are valid and just ..... you are a friend mac, I like you alot ..... but in future, please allow us to let the past rest as the past .... people change, (in fact I would consider the player that threatened my wife and kids to be a friend at this point) ..... I certainly did make mistakes at certain instances in the past, in those instances you were correct in your opinions mac, but at this point I'd really just like to bury all that crap, and go back to playing bolo. That is after all what we're here for.

Min

So uh, all my complaints (along with others) of indy as an op have fallen on deaf ears for the past how many months?

replaying to Min,

Yes I agree the only reason I brought the past up was as comparison to show that this is not an isolated instance, but something serious which bothers many winbolo players. Everything is cool between us, sorry for bringing up old dust.

A lil' O' my input: I don't know about any of Indy's op sins, but I wish he'd just calm down in games. He gets pissed about things like being pushed onto land by another tank and makes threats. C'mon, just chill! Ya, ya, I know I get worked up too, but I'm blissfully powerless and can't ban anyone. :D

*Ren wonders if he would threaten without ops :)

I am the one who Indiana recently booted unjustly.

The problem was that indy did not understand a rule, and he punished me for "breaking" the rule anyway. Even after discussing it with him within the last 30 minutes, I'm still not sure whether he understands the rule but is interpreting it to his advantage, or if he just has no clue what the actual wording of the rule truly means.

Of course, fi changed the rule on his website this morning or something like that, way after my conflict last night, undoubtedly in response to what happened. It is MUCH more clear now, so that everyone (even indy!) can understand it's meaning and there should be no loopholes for anyone, including indy, to jump through.

Min wrote:

however, sometimes you have to understand that a person in a position of power is RIGHT for doing what they've done ... you have to TRUST that they've done it for reasons that are valid and just .....

I think trusting is what you're doing min, and you can't just blindly trust that someone's judgement is correct. Especially if you're someone like myself or Mac who was ACTUALLY THERE and know what happened.

My thoughts:
-I agree with ren, GET RID OF INDY.
-We should re-instate Min.
-Ren should NEVER become an op.

Mad Scout wrote:

I think trusting is what you're doing min, and you can't just blindly trust that someone's judgement is correct. Especially if you're someone like myself or Mac who was ACTUALLY THERE and know what happened.

uh, bud, I think you need to read the rest of what i said ... in the instance I was refering to, mac wasn't there, he didn't have a clue, yet he defended anyways due to "friendship" .... I trust that when a person in a position of authority makes a judgement, that the judgement they make is a good one, that is what we have to do in society, its also what we have to do in winbolo, there will always be instances were someone makes a mistake .. or misinterpretes a "law" or a "policy" and those are dealt with by discussing those things clearly with the parties involved, in societies case, usually in front of a judge ..... your within your grounds to appeal a decision made by someone in power, but quite honestly, you still have to trust their judgement .... people make mistakes, and indy made one. One of winbolo's problems is having people you can't trust in a position of authority. If FI banned one of your friends for a similiar reason were you didn't know the details of the situation, would you trust his decision? ...

Min

I guess I should have elaborated more, not for this case specifically but just in general. And hopefully you'll see how much TRUST we Americans have in our president Bush when he gets told to pack his bags in November (not wanting to start a debate about politics in this thread, just wanting to make an example about how in democratic society we have the obligation and even the duty to question decisions made by those in power, and not blindly accept them).

Judging by Indiana's history as an op, he'll have a hard time getting people to trust him if his op-hood is retained.

Mad Scout wrote:

Of course, fi changed the rule on his website

Clarified, not changed, clarified it the way I did a little while ago in our convo! I can recognize that you think it was changed, I grant that to you, but I hope you see how for us it was simply clarified.

FireIce wrote:

Mad Scout wrote:

Of course, fi changed the rule on his website

Clarified, not changed, clarified it the way I did a little while ago in our convo! I can recognize that you think it was changed, I grant that to you, but I hope you see how for us it was simply clarified.

Yes, you and I have discussed our disagreement about this. But there are many others that were just as unclear as I was on the rule as you saw it. Now there hopefully is no confusion.

Stick to the topic please.

About Mad Scout's ban. Is it not op polocy to first warn the temporally ban and then permantally ban? For refusing to ban he should only be Warned not permantelly banned. I find Indiana's method of abusing his op powers to be offensive. If you would look at this page http://www.winbolo.us/forum/viewtopic.php?t=80 it shows an instance where a player by the name of MaddMaxx refused to leave a game. This is the same situation that happened with Mad Scout. If Mad Scout has had no other previous offenses on his record I find it higly irrational that Indiana has abused his powers of being an op. MaddMaxx has a previous record of offenses on mIRC. MaddMaxx was previousally banned and since then it has benn removed and he was allowed back on mIRC. If a player like MaddMaxx who has had a previous record does the exact same thing that Mad Scout did, then why does Indiana have the right to ban Mad Scout? If Indiana keeps abusing his powers like this which ren has posted that he has done in the past I see no reason why his Op's should be taken away.

Firstly, Brando, fuck off. Secondly, never refer to me in any posts without my letting you. It's very rude.

Who the hell is Indiana?

Pardon my American.

:D :x :D :x :D :x :D :x :D :x :D :x :D :x
Ok...well I dont ever talk on here either )(haha but I was asked to reply (haha) so here it goes. Indy has indeed broken the rules before and is somewhat "hot headed" in games; although, I think he deserves a "warning" just like you all said was the "rules" of this chat. If the rules state someone should be warned before they are banned(even if he didnt
follow these rules) I believe we should be the bigger person(s) and give him a warning, this being his final chance. If this behavior continues in any way unOP him. Obviously there is prob no "rule" for un-opping an op so I say there should be. He should be given a warning.
This should be a logical comprimise that both sides(assuming there are 2 sides) should agree on. If indy stops his behavior then good...we have one more "good" op. If he continues...we say see ya later bitch and thanks for all the "good times."
:D :x :D :x :D :x :D :x :D :x :D :x :D :x

I think the person with the final word is lrl, so he naturally should respond to this thread.

If you are an op, and you see someone committing one of the kickable/banable offense, instead of just kicking them outright, *first* /msg them a polite message that *respectfully* ask them to stop the behavior. If they refuse or ignore the request then proceed to kick them with the reason stated in the kick. If they come back and continue the behavior, then go ahead and kick-ban them for a period of time. The reason for a kick/ban is to always be stated, rather in the kick message or in the channel. The goal is to kick the least people possible, and in the event of kicking/banning people, to treat them with the *utmost respect possible*, no matter how rude they are.

That is from the winbolo.us policy. http://winbolo.us/policy.htm

It is not quite clear what happens when someone commits a bannable offense the first time. I think it means that the first time, the commiter should be warned. The second time they should be kicked, or I think that in the instance of banning, temporarily banned. This is the stage I think the offenses are at currently. If he continues to do it, than it may result in being banned for a longer length of time.

So, as you see, Indiana is only following policy. If you don't believe that there is a rule resulting in banning from #winbolo from not leaving a game, then look at this:

Failure to follow the following widely accepted and understood rules in passworded games will result in either your banning from the IRC channels, or from the individual game servers. Consider yourself warned.

This is from http://winbolo.netfirms.com/rules.shtml.

So as you see, Indiana was only following op policy. I cannot see anything he did which was out of order.

Now, as for Mad Scouts ban:

I think that when a person refuses to follow a large piece of ettiquette, they should have the right to do that. If you want them to leave, leave and make another game with a password that the person doesn't know. Heck, I bet hundreds of players have refused to leave a game more than 3 times, yet they have not been bannned.

Brando wrote:

About Mad Scout's ban. Is it not op polocy to first warn the temporally ban and then permantally ban? For refusing to ban he should only be Warned not permantelly banned. I find Indiana's method of abusing his op powers to be offensive.

This is actually my second "offense". There was an incident a few weeks ago between myself and fi that was similar, in which he thought I was breaking a rule and I argued that there was no such rule. He warned and then kicked me (because i did not cooperate). Then this thing with Indy happened a few days ago. So technically Indy followed procedure in that he did not ban me on a first offense.

Where his mistake was made, as I said before, was either misinterpreting a rule against me, or just completely not understanding the meaning of a rule as it was written.

Jay the Speeding Ray wrote:

Now, as for Mad Scouts ban:

I think that when a person refuses to follow a large piece of ettiquette, they should have the right to do that. If you want them to leave, leave and make another game with a password that the person doesn't know. Heck, I bet hundreds of players have refused to leave a game more than 3 times, yet they have not been bannned.

We DO have to have rules and consequences for not following them. Without them, we'd have chaos. The rule in question (leaving when the map creator asks) was not only technically not a rule since it wasn't on fi's website, it was not widely known and accepted either. And that was my biggest problem, was that I was getting punished for a rule that is not widely known, accepted, or used, and certainly not written anywhere. I will follow the rule now, because it is actually written. But I don't agree with it, and I don't know that everyone who didn't accept it and use it before will agree with it either. But at least now it's clear what expectations are.

yes, i dont think its very fair, i think that the person should only be banned by the map servers owner.

To start off with, the rules section of fi’s site was updated after this incident.

The rule now read's. "2) If someone ask you to leave (and you did not create the map), then leave without a fuss. Many times people organize games with set players, then start a map to play that game. The person who started the map via the gamebot on IRC gets the final decision in how big the game is and who has to leave or stay."

The rule prior to this read, "2) If someone ask you to leave (and you did not create the map), then leave without a fuss. Many times people organize games with set players, then start a map to play that game."

For indy following procedure in the 1, 2, 3 (warning, kick, ban). I don't see a problem here. MS had obviously been warned about this rule prior to anything with indy. The incident with fi served as warning, and fi also kicked ms because he refused to leave. Another incident with indy for the same matter, and indy set a ban.

All actions taken by ops are posted at: http://www.winbolo.us/forum/viewforum.php?f=11

The reason these rules apply to password games instead of all games, is simply because you can't get the password(s) unless you go on IRC. So if someone gets banned from IRC because of their abuse in games, then they can no longer (in theory) get the password(s). This is the reason we have password games. Other wise you guys would always have people joining and ruining your games.

Most people who've posted here would probably find many posts on the .us forums very helpful.

Mad Scout I'm glade you worked it out with indy and are no longer banned.

strange, I think this whole thing is hocky if the first place .... omg someone asked you to leave! .... lots of times you enter a game, and there is one newbie sitting there demanding that someone leave, yet other people are saying no no no don't leave ..... the whole thing is stupid ..... another reason to not satisfy the addiction.

Min