REN BANNING

So, can we ban Acro now, too, please? FOR LIFE?

CF

What would we do without you, CF?

Ren wrote:

I have a question here for all of you:

If you were an op, and observed DTM flood roughly 5 times a day with 10+ lines day after day after day -- and politely asked him every day to please not flood, How many of you would actually warn him after he's been kick/banned in the past and has been warned already what his actions of spamming will get him?

Secondly, I'm 1000% percent sure if acro didn't have you on ignore, he would have already banned you weeks ago. In fact, i've seen three different ops, and two that aren't ops politely ask you to stop flooding. That's more than enough of warnings to me.

I'm leaving the ban up to acro to unban you when he thinks its right, until then, maybe an attitude adjustment will happen?

And if you hadn't beaten me to it, ren, this is what I would've said eventually. But I think I have you give you props and say that you said it better than I would've. :-)

DANTHEMAN! wrote:

Nova wrote:

No no no, Dan, the burden of proof is on you. You started the topic, you started the buzz about policy being not followed, you back it up.

I'm saying that he has to warn me.

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.

But there it is... you asked...

This still doesn't support your theory that each day you start out with a clean state. This is probably my fault for not making this clear, but that was what I was after.

This thread is pointless. Shouldn't all of this be handled on the .us message board?

Supposedly? Yes. In practice: no.

Oh well... lets see if we can stay on topic for three more pages :D

Way to jinx it.

Nova wrote:

DANTHEMAN! wrote:

Nova wrote:

No no no, Dan, the burden of proof is on you. You started the topic, you started the buzz about policy being not followed, you back it up.

I'm saying that he has to warn me.

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.

But there it is... you asked...

This still doesn't support your theory that each day you start out with a clean state. This is probably my fault for not making this clear, but that was what I was after.

Yes Nova, It doesn't support that. But at the same time, it doesn't say anywhere that what I did before affects my rights in #winbolo.

P.S. Thanks for handling this in a civilized manner Nova, and not jumping out with excessive ammounts of flames.

Jason#8 wrote:

This thread is pointless. Shouldn't all of this be handled on the .us message board?

I am posting here because .us forums are less oftenly used.

DAllen wrote:

Earth to DTM...here you go:

http://www.winbolo.us/forums/viewtopic.php?p=419&sid=82d283b88706d1bbb11142ff7f418ceb#419

There it is. All the reasons explained in clear easy to understand english. I have to also testify that you have spammed the ticker in an open game this past Friday night I was in. In fact, you also repeatedly requested alliances with me that I rejected. Open game or not, those are bannable offenses.

Dan, you know what you are doing is annoying. You are purposely pushing the envelope on everyone's patience and now everyone has had enough and you are going to pay the penalty. That's too bad because there were times I actually had some fun hangin' with you.

-DAllen

Open game or not... its bannable? Earth to you. Read the policy again. And the reason I started this thread was because I am supposed to be warned before ban, and I was not.

Ren wrote:

I have a question here for all of you:

If you were an op, and observed DTM flood roughly 5 times a day with 10+ lines day after day after day -- and politely asked him every day to please not flood, How many of you would actually warn him after he's been kick/banned in the past and has been warned already what his actions of spamming will get him?

Secondly, I'm 1000% percent sure if acro didn't have you on ignore, he would have already banned you weeks ago. In fact, i've seen three different ops, and two that aren't ops politely ask you to stop flooding. That's more than enough of warnings to me.

I'm leaving the ban up to acro to unban you when he thinks its right, until then, maybe an attitude adjustment will happen?

Ok, you have never asked me politely not to flood. And you claim I flood "every day"? Read the policy. It shows no Leeway. LRL wrote it well. Follow it.

DANTHEMAN! wrote:

Yes Nova, It doesn't support that. But at the same time, it doesn't say anywhere that what I did before affects my rights in #winbolo.

Now we're going in circles. You are the one who's supposed to show me proof, not the other way around.

Nova wrote:

DANTHEMAN! wrote:

Yes Nova, It doesn't support that. But at the same time, it doesn't say anywhere that what I did before affects my rights in #winbolo.

Now we're going in circles. You are the one who's supposed to show me proof, not the other way around.

I showed you that it did not support your arguement. By showing you that section of the policy, it states that I need to be warned, which is my proof.

Which argument? You have been warned, Dan, it doesn't matter if it happened a week ago or not.

So Dan's argument can be summed up thus: 'Ops, please babysit me as I wreak havoc in the community on a daily basis; you must do this because the policy lacks the extremely-fine detail that would keep me from finding loopholes and would force me to behave.'

Good thing we have such a thing as 'common sense' in #winbolo.

Acro wrote:

So Dan's argument can be summed up thus: 'Ops, please babysit me as I wreak havoc in the community on a daily basis; you must do this because the policy lacks the extremely-fine detail that would keep me from finding loopholes and would force me to behave.'

Good thing we have such a thing as 'common sense' in #winbolo.

How is flooding when nobody is around "wreaking havoc"? I wasn't intterupting any conversations... or causing any damage to the server.

I had a conversation with Min today about policy, and he brought up the "KISS" rule. Keep It Simple, Stupid. Policy is about general guidelines and how moderators choose to interpret that, it shouldn't look like a legal contract's evil twin.

Nova wrote:

Which argument? You have been warned, Dan, it doesn't matter if it happened a week ago or not.

It states that after I commit the offense... I should be warned... then if it persists... I should be kicked... then if it persists... I should be banned.

I did my little flood... and ren skipped the steps.

DANTHEMAN! wrote:

Nova wrote:

Which argument? You have been warned, Dan, it doesn't matter if it happened a week ago or not.

It states that after I commit the offense... I should be warned... then if it persists... I should be kicked... then if it persists... I should be banned.

I did my little flood... and ren skipped the steps.

Actually, Dan... Acro started the steps, and ren just finished them. Acro warned you, then he kick/banned you. Stuff does carry over, otherwise you could say "Nope, you can't ban me for flooding, that was three minutes ago" Dan, Just leave while you're behind.

DANTHEMAN! wrote:

Nova wrote:

Which argument? You have been warned, Dan, it doesn't matter if it happened a week ago or not.

It states that after I commit the offense... I should be warned... then if it persists... I should be kicked... then if it persists... I should be banned.

I did my little flood... and ren skipped the steps.

First of all... a 'little flood' isn't 50+ lines, Dan.

Second of all... Common sense says stop after you're asked the FIRST TIME...

I've been avoiding this post but hell, everybodys doing it...

1. Here's what's going on... Dan, you need to stop posing as a thirteen year old... or otherwise dumb up your language and debating skills... That's my oponion, dans a troll... Take it or leave it

2. This entire argument is meaningless *shrug* It is LRL'S policy and LRL should be dealing with it, wasting the time/effort with it shows no promise..

3. DTM stop being an attention-whore

4. If DTM is exploiting the Policy.. then obviousally it needs more revision than everyone gave it (Including myself) And we should all revert the incident here in this thread to the policy to help make it more defined and accurate.

5. DTM, you're banned.. There is no need to aprehend the situation any further than it has been taken.. You've been walking a thin line for quite awhile now.. People HAVE reached out to you.. You've repeatidly ignored what myself and others have stated and now you're suffering the consiquences, grow up and accept the fate

6. I <3 Jason

-Brando

This should be the last post in this mediocre series... I hope everyone agrees with me that has been involved.

DANTHEMAN! wrote:

It states that after I commit the offense... I should be warned... then if it persists... I should be kicked... then if it persists... I should be banned.

Funny, I could've sworn I saw you flooding every day.

Nope... That post can't be the last... and neither can this one be. Hopefully it'll end with M1NN4RD loxorizing this topic, because it's so fricken retarded... except fer #6... w00t


Lock it and make an example of it!

This has kinda started to go in circles.