I was just banned for killing a game that Brando mapped.
Jhood is the one who banned me. He and I got into an argument yesterday, so I don't think it was coincidence. The argument was about an open, of all things.
The best part is: Brando killed a game I mapped 5 minutes before I killed the one that he mapped. And yet, I'm the only one of us who got banned. As it turns out, I didn't mind Brando killing that me. The claim, i think, is that my game was not 'active,' and yet, i was in it when it was killed.
Is there a policy in place for me to officially register a complaint about Jhood exercising personal and unfair judgement in banning someone?
- derami
Update:
<jhood> Do not kill (shut down) a game in which other people are still playing. (Any game type)
That is the reason Hood gave me for banning me. Interestingly, he never answered my question as to why Brando didn't get banned. Implicit in his post is the suggestion that it is because the game I mapped wasn't passworded. However, the above quote suggests that the passworded/non-passworded nature of the game is irrellevant: ANY GAME TYPE it says. So, what's the deal, hood?
Both winbolo.us and winbolo.net use the same forum software, so you can register an account the same way you did here.
The original post on winbolo.us answers the question as to why you were removed from the channel whereas brando was not.
I'm quoting my other post here as well:
<Brando> acrobot map Fitzhu.map
<Acrobot> Fitzhu.map @ winbolo://24.195.41.47:59930 - strict for 10 gamers - password: server
...
<Deramisan> acrobot kill 59930
Derami brought up brando killing a game beforehand that derami spawned however this was not a passworded game:
<Deramisan> acrobot mapnp fitzhu
<Acrobot> Fitzhu v3.map @ winbolo://24.195.41.47:59548 - strict for 10 gamers
<Brando> ew
<Brando> that map blows.
<Brando> acrobot kill 59548
<Acrobot> Game destruction commencing - please stand by. Brando killed game 59548 on 24.195.41.47
There's no rule about killing an open or non-passworded strict game with no players, but using irc to explicitly end a 2x2 that is still in progress is against policy, hence my action. I was simply upset with you about the open, it didn't influence me tonight.
Getting a little bit more personal, you bring my operator status into conversations with others when you sense they break the rules but cannot understand why you got repremanded. This is silly.
Ban will be removed in one day.
Last edited: Feb 08, 2006 10:27 (edited 1 time)
i had just mapped the game, and was in the process of joining it when it was killed - it was, in fact, confusing and frustrating that i couldn't join it. so, what constitutes people 'playing a game,' hood? So, in other words: you're saying that I could map games, and Brando could continuously kill them as I map them, and get away with it because I wasn't 'technically' playing yet, just planning to?
conversely, the '2v2' that i supposedly killed was not a 2v2 anymore, since I had left- it was a 2v1 in which there was an extra, unallied player (namely chaps) who had joined and was interrupting the game when i left. so, your statement is misleading, and betrays the fact that you didn't even bother to get information on who was playing or what had happened. rather, without warning or discussion, you banned me. But all of that is, of course, just frustrating and beside the point.
the post that you quoted does not, in fact, answer the question of why i was banned and brando was not. it implies that it was because one game was passworded and the other was not, which, by your own admission, makes no difference: <jhood> Do not kill (shut down) a game in which other people are still playing. (Any game type)
You later said, in the same post: "There's no rule about killing an open or non-passworded strict game with no players, but using irc to explicitly end a 2x2 that is still in progress is against policy, hence my action" This directly contradicts the policy statement you quoted above, which suggests that killing ANY game of ANY type with players is equally against the rules. So why did you bring up game types? And why did you quote me and Brando each killing a game, and talk about the fact that one was passworded and one wasn't? By your own account, that makes no difference.
But all of that really funny hypocracy aside, my favorite part is your explicit reason for banning me:
<jhood> for killing a spawed game from irc which he did not start
That is the reason you cited for banning me when I was kicked from the channel. However, you did not ban Brando, nor have you answered the simple question: given this ban justification that YOU made for kicking me, why did you NOT ban Brando based on the exact same reasoning?
Forget all of your after-the-fact posturing and justifications.
You banned me, and cited a reason for it, but you did not ban Brando, who could have been banned for that same reason 5 minutes prior. It's just poor taste, hood, not to mention really bad form for ops, for you to ban me just because I 'killed' your open game the day before by telling the noobs in it that games normally end when 1 team has all the pills.
-= Derami
Last edited: Feb 08, 2006 10:44 (edited 1 time)
The answer is there if you interpret it as what I'm trying to say rather than just fuel for a debate.
While I had a small role in updating the policy, I didn't write it. I enforce it, and if you took a step back and read everything that has been wrote to you and the policy once more you'll see. I don't have a beef with you, or anyone else, so it's silly to imply that.
One thing you need to understand, and this was the basis for our other discussion you mention, is that games don't end just because you leave.
My wording was wrong, but I didn't base my actions on that. You killed a game where we were still playing whereas brando killed one where nobody joined. If you're angered about not being able to join a game that hasn't started yet start should you be killing games that have?
I also had a discussion with brando about his killing your game before you posted this thread.
you say that your "wording was wrong." Well, I can forgive that, we all make slip-ups. So, deep breath, step back. Now, please explain to me an alternate wording in which some version of the following statement (your express reason for banning me) has anything, whatsoever, to do with the policy that you supposedly are just neutrally enforcing: <jhood> for killing a spawed game from irc which he did not start
probably you will resort to the same tired defense: "The answer is there if you interpret it as what I'm trying to say." well, since you insist that i re-read your obscure posts until i 'get the message,' which, apparently, is buried beneath the layers of irrelevant crap and laughable contradictions, let's change tactics for a minute here:
you say you're here to enforce policy, right? good, simple, to-the-point, i can respect that. you don't create policy, just enforce it.
well, explain to me what part of the policy chaps broke, which, in turn, led to his ban. This should be an easy one, right? And this time, you can't get out of it by saying 'it's already there' or 'read between the lines.'
Just
answer
the
simple
question.
***What part of winbolo policy did Chaps break?***
Thanks
-= Derami
Last edited: Feb 08, 2006 11:01 (edited 1 time)
You tell me
<Deramisan> chaps killed my lgm, then took a base in my quad
a simple question, which deserved a simple answer - and you turn around and ask me it back? are you a policy-enforcing op or a 2-bit shrink? yes, chaps fucked up the game. yes, it annoyed me. i'm *just asking* WHAT part of the WINBOLO policy he BROKE by doing that. jesus christ man.
i looked the policy *up and DOWN* after you banned me, to try and divine the hidden reason behind it, only to find that you did it on a technicality that probably applies to 2 dozen other people a day (how many times have you, dear reader, killed a game that maybe you even MAPPED but it still had someone in it? ever get banned for that? well, apparently, you should have).
so AGAIN i ask one simple, little question:
***what part of the winbolo policy did chaps break?***
-= Derami
Last edited: Feb 08, 2006 11:05 (edited 1 time)
THANK YOU for at least not just turning it back around this time. i sincerely appreciate your attempt to actually address my question rather than refer me to something else that has been said.
1) since you like quoting policy so much, please quote the part of the policy that supports the reason you just gave for the ban. THAT is what i'm asking for here - why you banned him, based on some part of the policy that backs up your reasoning.
2) he was never asked to leave. ask anyone who was in the game. i asked him afterword, and he said noone asked him to leave. i was personally watching the message bar, and saw that noone asked him to leave. based on who or what did you make that justification?
cite your sources,
-= Kurt
Derami, you killed a strict game when people will still playing it. You're probably right, people kill games all the time but I don't see them. This was probably on of the main reasons the policy was wrote in the first place.
I don't remember ever killing a game that wasn't a smallball game between cf and I, and we both leave those after its over. Just because you break the rules doesn't mean other people do, does it?
heh, you're a real piece of work, hood. you tell me 'not to take it personally' but then say that my 'account' is automatically invalid because i'm "notorious for multitasking." if we were in a court of law, and you were the cop, i'd love to see you pull that one out. "sorry, sir, but that witness can't be trusted because he multitasks." as it happens, i was not multitasking, but paying very close attention to the game, asshole.
so, what you are *really* saying is: your word and brandos are more valid than mine and chaps. now, i find this particularly funny since you and brando get along, and you and i just had an argument yesterday. that, and you banned both me and chaps after and ONLY after brando suggested that you should do it. so, again, with the not taking this personally ... you are a funny, funny man.
so, again, let's side-step here since this seems to be getting us nowhere in particular anymore.
i still wish you would answer me other question - you know, the one where you reword your reason for kicking me off the channel? just for fun, try to do it without radically changing the meaning.
-= Derami
Last edited: Feb 08, 2006 11:20 (edited 1 time)
I just explained that to you. and I've been quoting policy all night. What I gather is that you read what I wrote, disregarded it and asked me the very questions I just answered. That is the reason our IRC conversation ended and this one as well.
If you need further assistance use the winbolo.us forums, it's the same type of webforum.
Thanks.
sure, you quoted policies that didn't apply, then turned around and banned me for a reason that had nothing to do with policy. luckily for you, you found a technicality (albeit one that applies to at least a dozen people a day who are NOT banned) that actually DOES apply, though, hilariously, it has nothing to do with the initial reason you gave. same with chaps. you said it was because he 'interfered with the game.' later, it's because he was asked to leave and didn't, once you were forced to give a real reason. conveniently, the reason you finally gave can't be proven or disproven. nonetheless, hood, your initial reasons for both bans are both there, in your own words, for everyone to see - and neither have even the slightest bit to do with any winbolo policy whatsoever.
<jhood> for killing a spawed game from irc which he did not start - that is not even close to a bannable offense
Joined a passworded 2x2, took a base and messed derami up. * Chaps was kicked by jhood (for ruining passworded scrict) - again, nothing to do with anything bannable, sorry hood, strike two!
so, no matter what you cook up to say in retrospect, after the fact, your contradictions are plain to see. for that, at least, i'm glad,
-= Derami
P.S. look, hood, i get the point: in one person's eyes, the game was still going. i'm not complaining about the fact that i was banned for this, i'm just pissed because (1) you are selectively enforcing the policy [i.e. i've seen other people do the same thing *when you were around* and get away with it] and (2) the express reason you gave for banning me had nothing to do with your eventual justification for doing so [i.e. when i held your ass to the fire you managed to shit up something that smelled nice].
Last edited: Feb 08, 2006 11:40 (edited 1 time)
I signed off for a bit but I'm back.
In my eyes, interfering with the game is not leaving and messing it up. Since you're intro public opinion ask the other ops tomarrow for their opinion on that one.
You killed a game that had people in it. This isn't against policy? If it's not I'll personally release my operator status right now.
Toward the end of this post the winbolo.us forums are really a better place to discuss this since it's .us policy that was broken.
Jhood: "You killed a game that had people in it. This isn't against policy? If it's not I'll personally release my operator status right now."
How about you release your ops status because of all of the times you've watched people kill games with people in them and not banned them. From now on, I'll make a habit if noting down every time a game is killed that has someone in it, and I'll be sure to forward you that list. alternatively, how about relinquishing your ops privledges for providing misleading (to the point of absurdity) reasons for banning someone in the first place. even suggesting that "killing a spawed game from irc which he did not start " is a bannable offense shows that you are, sadly, not even remotely close to being well-versed in your .us policy.
Jhood: "In my eyes, interfering with the game is not leaving and messing it up. Since you're intro public opinion ask the other ops tomarrow for their opinion on that one."
I'm honestly not sure where this comment is coming from. From the way i'm reading it, it sounds like you think that "interfering with the game" (a phrase that you admit is up for interpretation) is somehow in violation of some .us policy. The word "interfere" doesn't come up in any of the .us policy guidelines. perhaps it should be, but it isn't currently, so what are you talking about? As for your comment about "public opinion," quite the opposite: I think you are swayed by public opinion, and that you made your initial judgements for both bans based on what is popularly assumed to be bannable. If you recall, hood, you once led me on for over an hour by suggesting that someone could be banned for killing my LGM while we were allied, only to discover that there is no policy that applies to this.
My point is: despite the fact that we all get aggrevated when someone "interferes" with a game, the fact of the matter is: that is not against policy. What my BIG BEEF is here, tonight, I have already suggested: it's the fact that you seem to have a skewed notion of what the policy actually is, and you only refer back to and quote policy in either irrelevant ways or to retroactively justify and decision that you made for completely unrelated reasons - reasons based on assumed notions of what is or is not against policy, rather than being based on an actual familiarity with the rather brief policy you are actually supposed to enforce.
This is why I keep coming back to the discontinuity between what you actually cited as your initial reasons for a ban, and the policy that you later quote to justify the ban when forced to do so.
-= Derami
P.S. Is there any log that shows who killed what games? I'll bet you your ops status that we'll find at BARE MINIMUM a half-dozen games PER DAY which were killed by someone, in Mirc, though there were still technically players in it. If you want to argue 'but those games are mostly over,' well, then define your terms - as far as I was concerned, the game in quesiton was 'mostly over' because it was a 2v2 and one of the players had left the game, while another extra player was in the game and busy ruining it. Explain to me, if you will, how I can be killing a "2v2 in progress" if one of the 2 teams has lost a player - don't you mean a 2v1 in progress, with an extra wildcard in there that noone wants? you want to ban me for this, i'm fine with that, and i'll agree to any policy that is in place - but honestly, how was i to even suspect that i might be banned for this when so many other people do this every - single - day? Again, same point over and over: if you're going to ban me for something like this, without warning or conversation, then I fully expect you to do the same each - and - every time that someone kills a game with people in it. If you do not, then you are a hypocrite.
Last edited: Feb 08, 2006 12:07 (edited 1 time)
Also I'd be happy to look over the logs you send me. I've told you before that I usually do this but I've been using irc less the past few days.
You can email them to me at jhood@winbolo.net and I'll take action although if their new and don't know the rules (you and chaps do so lets not go there) I'd have to talk to them first.
ok...ummmm let me get this straight. Der, u were banned for one day? is it really worth all this shit? me and hood have had meny arguments and homeboys a fighter. just let it go. there aint shit u can do. life is not fair sometimes.
Helpful and insightful as always, FUBAR.
Derami, there have been hundred's of instances of the 'policy' not being followed, complaining about hood not following it isn't going to get you anywere, other than make you look like an ass... Just don't join irc, its not like they can stop you from playing winbolo if you don't. I'll email you the passwords if they ever get around to changing them. That way you can ruin/destroy any game you like, and all they can do is ... ban you from a place you don't go.........
Min
