Jhood

I really thought this issue was dead and buried. I admitted I was wrong, should have been banned, and the policy has subsequently been changed once (and might be again) to avoid future confusion.

I was banned for killing a game mapped by Brando, shortly after Brando killed a game that was mapped by me. Now, there were subtlties to this situation, but let's cut to the chase - the following is the reason Jhood gave for banning me:

<jhood> for killing a spawed game from irc which he did not start

Note: that isn't/wasn't a bannable offense - so using that reason wasn't particularly wise, but let's skip that. He *didn't* ban Brando, who had killed a game I had spawned. I was given no warning, and this was my first ban.

At the time he apologized for his mistake, saying 'oh the policy used to be like this.' Fine, honest mistake, I can accept that. But if he thought that was what the policy STILL was for some reason, he should have banned Brando, too.

At the time, however, he claimed that he didn't ban Brando because:

<Jhood> Derami brought up brando killing a game beforehand that derami spawned however this was not a passworded game

So, already we have two reasons that are at odds - he bans me for one thing, then lets Brando off the hook for something that is NOT in the policy (just like the thing he banned ME for wasn't in the policy). So far, we have TWO policy mistakes, but WORSE YET we have an inconsistency even WITHIN the application of the misunderstood policy - he applied the ban to me, not Brando, though they both fit the reason he gave for banning me.


Retroactively he claims now that:

<jhood> you killed a game in which people were still playing, so I removed you from irc [[this is a big change from his because-brando-mapped-it-you-can't-kill-it original argumen - also not winbolo policyt]]

<jhood> brando killed a game in which nobody was playing, thus I talked to him in private and talked it out [[so much for his oh-well-the-one-you-mapped-wasn't-passworded reasoning - also not winbolo policy]]

So in fact NEITHER of these actions reflects his original reasoning behind banning me and not banning Brando (on TOP of the fact that his original reasons didn't reflect policy) - he has effectively rewritten history to make it look like he used proper reasons to begin with, when he really banned me for one thing, didn't ban Brando for the same thing, and in BOTH cases cited things that AREN'T EVEN IN THE POLICY as justifications of his actions (or inactions).

I had thought this issue was resolved, until he wrote the above two lines today, which made me realize he was stilll trying to convince me (and perhaps himself) that he was in the right all along. Now, what I did was bannable, and I deserved to be banned, but not for the reason he gave and, by his own logic at the time, Brando should have been banned - but he still doesn't understand this.

So, malicious and intentional or accidental and idiotic? You decide.

For my own part, I can't blame him in a way - he was pissed at me for requesting all to kill an open, which he doesn't see as right but couldn't ban me for. His hands were tied, and I escalated the situation by getting into a heated debate with him. I'm not free of guilt here :) And as recent posts show, I have as many folks on here who think I'm a pain in the ass as think I'm a positive contributor to this community. Still, ops are ops and need to be responsible with their power, even if they don't agree with the non-bannable activities that I (and many others - haven't you ever requested all to kill an open that was over? - except for you, Min, I <3 ya but I'm NOT talking to ya right now lol) engage in.

-= Derpainintheass

was it really worth the novel u just wrote? what? were u banned for like a day? have u ever just let shit go? let it go man. just let it go. this is something i like to call, beating a dead horse. i think your takeing this "game" to seriously. im not insulting u, and yes, u do contribute to this community. but jesus man, chill out and let it go. u dont have to state your opnion every opertunity u get. all this was spawned because of 2 lines of text in irc? gah!!!! how bad can it be? i can be a huge asshole, i have messed up some games, i have pissed meny if not all people off in the community, yet, i have never ever been banned for any reason that i can remember. in short, who gives a shit. let it go.

its like u get busted for slingin drugs and your gunna serve time.

but u say, "that guy sells drugs too, shouldnt he go to jail?"

FUBAR your drugs analogy doesnt work because one of derami's points is that his offense is not in the policy, whereas drug drealing is against US law policy

yes, but my point is hes snichin. cry cry cry.

hes got an ice cream wheres my ice cream.

Derami, you have to let it go. The combined active neurons of jhood and Min isn’t enough to fill a thimble. LRL continues to allow jhood to be an op. It’s a wagon full of monkeys, don’t try to understand it or change it, it’s a waste of time. I don’t know why you waste your time on #winbolo, there are only a couple people worth talking with there.

Like me zzz?
You should stop by and say Hi to me sometime, although I'm not on much anymore. only during the day really.

By the way.
This topic sux

First and foremost, I am leaning more towards Fubar's perspective on this topic. Seems rather petty to analyze your wrong doings with other peoples folly's. In generalized terms:

a.) You admit that you did do something that was wrong and deserved a punishment such as being banned. *Whether or not the actual offense you did got you the ban or not, thats usually the way karma works, the ban will catch up with you one way or the other.

b.) Brando did something that you felt was exactly the same as what caused your ban, but that has nothing to do with your ban, that is just a reason to argue and endulge in reasons to like you said, be a pain in the butt.

*c.) zzz as I recall, up until almost everyone shunned you and you were booted from IRC a few times, heh you were in #winbolo every day all the time. So your comment on not knowing why derami wastes his time in the same channel you would be wasting time in too had certain elements changed. Your barking up a tree. I dont always get along with derami but in comparison to you zzz, I must admit at least derami does infact contribute, and is not nearly as impossible to get along with as you.

Derami I cant even remember how many times I looked back on when I attended .com I was kicked and banned several times, at the time I challenged whether or not I should have been. Looking at it rationally now, I would say 3/4 of the time even iif it wasnt the reason they banned me, I played iwht fire on many occassions which I got away with and should have been kicked off. Karma man, Karma.

Addbot: That was absolutely better than anything I could have ever wrote, and I think you hit the nail on the head.

Here's some more interesting insight into derami's actions in IRC:

After enigma does exactly the same thing a few days ago that Brando did back in February, derami outright lies to me to save enigma's ass. So with all that talk about how Brando should have been banned, and how we should revise the policy to cover this, he outright lies to me when enigma does it. Then they both brag about how they fooled me after I left irc!

I honestly think it's just a problem with authority, or that he just doesn't like me and is looking for ways to either trash talk me or get me out of the op list. But for whatever reasons, the fact that he outright lied to me and told me that he gave enigma permission to kill a game the same way that Brando did, after stressing so hard that Brando should have been banned, I think he lost whatever willingness alot of people had to listen to him and talk things out.

And derami and I also came to the conclusion before he brought this brando/derami crap back up that zzz was likely the one who proxied into wbn and left those stupid gallup polls which sparked my wbn policy revision post, which in turn made our only active moderator remove wbn entirely from his computer.

I believe we all need to give thanks to both zzz and derami for the wonderful benefit they both bring to winbolo! Thanks, guys!

.com never had a policy. Why have a policy if you are going to bend it whenever it suits you.

Wow you people can waste some serious time on stupid garbage.

Egad.

-DAllen

Brando wrote:

Like me zzz?

Ya, you made the short list.

So Enigma killed a game that I mapped during our discussion because I told him to do it via AIM chat to see what Hood would do. When Hood then (clearly realizing that he better start being consistent about policy if he doesn't want people breathing down his neck) then started to warn and/or kick and/or ban Enigma. So I cut the farce and told Hood I had allowed Nigma to kill it.

Later, after getting all huffy and leaving MIRC mid-conversation Hood 'cleverly' rejoined almost right away under a different nickname. It was entirely obvious it was still Hood. So I started talking about how funny it was that Hood had 'fallen for it' and Enigma played along. After a good laugh when he suddenly 'revealed' himself and called me a liar, etc..., I explained we were just messing with him - obviously, someone joining in the middle of the night with an unknown nickname, then not talking at all, was hardly as likely as it being Hood trying to snoop without being 'noticed.'

Way to tell your half of the story, as always, Hood. I'm sorry we played around with you, Hood, but we told you the truth later - why misrepresent it here? Oh, wait, you like to change the facts retroactively, nm.

And Add: you say the reasons for my ban were unrelated to Brando's not being banned, but that clearly isn't the case. Was my post too hard for you to follow? Allow me to clarify: I was kicked and banned for killing a game that someone else had mapped, according to Hood's own words. When I contacted Hood and asked him to ban Brando who had done the same thing he wouldn't do it. When I thoroughly read the policy and pointed out that his reasons in both cases were not consistent with winbolo policy Hood then retroactively changed BOTH his reasons for banning me AND for not banning Brando.

This is really a very simple thing: he banned me for something, and didn't ban Brando for the same. All of the other details are irrelevant to that point (i.e. his later mind-changing about the reasons, his misunderstanding of policy, etc...) since both game-kills happened in a period of under 30 minutes - and my ban came SECOND, after he didn't ban Brando (if mine had come first, he could argue that by the time Brando killed my game he had had time to look at the policy).

-= Der

P.S.

[Addy in this forum]: "Brando did something that you felt was exactly the same as what caused your ban, but that has nothing to do with your ban"

[Jhood's stated reason in MIRC when banning me after failing to ban Bran] <jhood> for killing a spawed game from irc which he did not start

That's exactly what Brando did. How are you still confused, Add?

During a discussion with Jhood I think I finally figure it out.

Either (1) Jhood is wrong, and I have been right from the start: Jhood exercised bias in his application of policy, likely in response to an unrelated argument he and I had the night before (it seems unlikely to be coincidence, since it was our first argument and that is the only time I have ever been banned from MIRC)

Or (2) Jhood is right, and he genuinely misunderstood the policy at the time, and gave both the wrong reasons for my ban and Brando's lack-of-ban. Now, in that case, he was incredibly irresponsible (or, again, biased) because the winbolo policy guide tells ops to first warn and discuss bannable offenses if a person has not been previously warned or banned for said offense. I was not warned - and, in fact, I was not even given a chance to talk, I was banned immediately.

The policy guidelines telling them to WARN at a first offense:
http://winbolo.us/policy.htm

Hood's OWN ban report showing that he immediately banned me:
http://winbolo.us/forums/viewtopic.php?t=159


-= Der

Post #1: I honestly don't think you and enigma staged that just to see what I would do. You and I made it very clear that one another understood that killing games that nobody is in is not against policy before this happened, so staging an entire show to "see what I would do" is just a very stupid coverup, IMO. I think you were just trying to save enigmas ass from being removed, because you still don't understand policy or that you think I'm some biased idiot watching irc waiting to kill innocent bystanders. I would not have ever been op'ed if that were the case, btw.

Post #2: I'm not sure if I'm supposed to choose one of those reasons, but I find it interesting that the only end to this is that I have to admit I am wrong for banning you. You broke policy, you killed a game that was still being played, whereas brando just killed one that nobody was in. Yes, if you had joined that game before brando had killed it, brando would have been removed. You don't think this is true because you yourself are biased toward me, and it does show more than whatever bias you think I have toward you because while I am willing to take a massive amount of time out of my life to reiterate myself, you are merely creating "fuck jhood" posts on wbn.

I have admitted that the reason posted in irc after you were removed and the reason I quoted in the ban report post is wrong. I believe that killing games someone else mapped was an implied rule, and that might have been on my mind at the time, but the reality is, you killed an active game. Now, I actually think you might have been trying to get back at brando for killing yours, but I haven't brought that up, and it wasn't a factor in my decision to remove you.

You bring up that I should have corrected myself in the ban report posting - yes, I probably should have, but you've refused to accept "killing a game in progress" now, and since February. Everytime you bring this up, I state that you killed an active game and action was taken against you. Now, if this whole thing is because I posted the wrong thing, then yes, you have reason to be upset - even if you've gone completely overboard. HOWEVER, if you're only doing this because you still think I actually removed you because you "killed a game somebody else mapped" you are wrong, and you are refusing to accept reality.

You were not removed because you killed someone elses game, it was active, you killed it, and I punted you. Accept that fact.

Welp, looks like we figured it all out kids.. Derami and I spent some time looking over the threads we've made and the old ban report. We've come to grips with the fact, that, yes the report I gave probably broke the op policy since it stated an invalid reason, but as I've said before, that wasn't the reason he was banned. He's been doing all this because he thought I took action and removed him and let brando stay, even though their two offenses were literally identical. He now agrees that he broke the policy, brando didn't, and he understands why action was taken against him at the time.

This conclusion came when derami asked why, if I'm not rewriting history and in fact removed him because he killed a game in progress (rather than the reason stated in the ban report - killing a game which he didnt spawn), why wouldn't I have edited the original ban report to reflect this? He wanted solid proof that my actions adhered to policy. And, welp..

It turns out that I didn't change the original winbolo.us post because derami had me stay and fight on wbn despite my repeated requests to move back in a private message or the winbolo.us forums. Of course, had I been on .us at the time, I would have changed it, and I've mentioned this to derami. Well, as proof that he was removed for a valid reason, and to answer the following:

[02:09:56] <deramo> if it happened within a few seconds, as you say, i have a question.
[02:10:30] <deramo> why then did you op-post (somewhat LATER) that the reason brando wasn't banned was because mine was unpassworded and his was - because that statement implies you STILL thought your reason for me was right

with the first post I created on this "jhood should be demoted" thread.

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.

Yes, that winbolo.us post that I quoted was completely, 100% invalid and it if were in fact the reason I removed derami, or took any action against him at all, I'd either have my ops removed or I'd remove them myself and quit the game. However, as you can see, I misquoted the wrong policy rule. But, please remember that I've been stating for so long, in fact, right after these actions took place, that he was in fact, believe it or not, removed because he killed a game in progress.

[02:19:31] <jhood> so, I admited fault for the winbolo.us post, and if I ever quoted it anywhere along the timeline here, I thought it read what I was implying - that you killed a game in progress
[02:19:40] <jhood> so no rewriting history.. no bias
[02:20:04] <jhood> no lindsay lohan sittin on my lap :(
[02:20:17] <jhood> .... reality .....

So with this comes an end of an era. The jhood vs Derami days are over, and I hope that we can work together to rid the world of evil as we once had done. With this, I ask that a moderator lock this topic, since it's more of a flame post based on invalid assumptions all around and shouldn't be on the front page.. but wait! We have no moderators to do so, since zzz destroyed our only active moderators ambision to moderate! We must now rely on the other moderators who are either too busy or not willing to deal with the crap that are flame threads! Congratulations, I say, are in order to ZZZ(-.-)! Huzzah!

Hrm, once again I'm troubled, Hood. Why would you want to have the last word, implying that we agree on and have resolved the issue, and then request that the case be closed and forum be locked? Unless you were worried about me taking apart your weak counterarguments? Don't worry, I'm not going to do it.

Look, I'll never know for sure whether or not you made a glaring series of mistakes while dealing with my case and Brando's - citing incorrect reasons multiple times AND over a period of time AND not giving me a warning, etc... - or whether you were still heated up because you told me not to request all to kill opens (something not against policy and accepted by the vast majority of people who play opens - not just me).

If it was the glaring series of errors, then I hope you've learned a lesson and plan to be a better op in the future - the policy says you should warn people and discuss the issue, not kick and ban them immediately. If you banned me out of spite and later (when pressed about it publicly by me) reconfigured your reasoning to justify it, well, we'll never know for sure and I'd like to believe it ...

Either way, I deserved to be banned - as I have stated numerous times. My only complaint was that you used faulty logic to explain my ban, THEN didn't apply that same logic to someone else. When initially pushed on the issue, you came up with another faulty reason not to ban Brando, which you submitted to the forums following my complaint and before you clarified your position. We all make mistakes, and we all sometimes let our personal frustration interfere with our judgement. You either made a series of suprising mistakes or were still upset with me - neither one, to me, is grounds for de-oping you forever or anything. Largely I've pursued this because I want to effect positive change (believe it or not!). If you made a mistake and misquoted policy and kicked me too fast, maybe you will take more time assessing things next time. If there was some low level of spite involved (perhaps even subconscious?) the headache I'm causing may make you more level-headed in the future ;)

So, with that, if you want to close the chapter on this, I'll be happy to.

-= Derami

I really quit caring if you get it or not. You broke a rule, I enforced it and gave you one of the least-painful banlengths in IRC history. I'm not the bad guy, regardless.. I misquoted a post, even though I made it clear about 12 seconds after I took out you out and you can't accept that.

I don't care, drop it, let it go, get a life and leave it alone already.

Hood,

You tell me to drop it, but you write epic responses - the only reason this was brought back to life in the first place is because you made blatantly untrue statements about the cause-of-effect of events in MIRC. You say you corrected yourself '12 seconds later' when, in reality, you made your post to the op-forum without any 'correction' - the rewriting of history came only after I pushed you on the subject. I keep trying to let it drop, but you keep trying to cover your ass with bad logic and outright lies. You tried to close this topic by having the last word and pretending that we'd come to an understanding, hoping the forum would be closed before I could say anything, then I tried to end it diplomatically, but again you come back with half-assed excuses with laughable exagerations. Look, you made a mistake, and it wasn't just mistyping the reason for banning me - what kind of idiot says 'banned for killing a game he didn't map' when he means 'banned for killing a game in progress,' or says 'the other guy wasn't banned because the game wasn't passworded' when he meant to say 'the other guy wasn't banned because the game wasn't in progress.' sheesh, man, either admit you were looking for a reason to ban me specifically or that you weren't up-to-date on your policy and made a snap judgement, rather than warning like you were supposed to. The bottom line is: you banned me right away when no one complained, and you didn't even LOOK into banning Brando until I 'reminded' you that he killed a game right before I did. I don't give a shit if you can retroactively justify what you did and didn't do with creative interpretations of the policy - you fucked up, admit it.

-= Der

<jhood> I removed him for killing a 3x3 I believe
<LRLd> well, anyways he says it was a 2x2 and another joined and messed it up
* jhood nods
<LRLd> that seems reasonable to me, no one complained so everyone seemed to agree

No, it seems as though this creeps back up somehow every time you start to get pissy in IRC.

Sure, we can say I picked you out specifically because I'm a dip shit, or because I had it out for you, or because some other bullshit you rambled on about - but there's a huge coincidence here, in the fact that you were the only player in the entire community of like 4000 players that broke policy that night.

I don't get why you're forcing me to either be the bad guy or wrong. Or maybe both, I don't know. I also don't see why you're just now bringing up "rewriting history" when I corrected myself when it happened. I don't even know what you're pissed off at - it pretty much changes every time you bring up this worthless conversation. I don't even think you were ever that upset at being removed, you're just looking for someone to fight with - every time you encounter a disagreeing opinion it's an instant fight where the other person is a biased idiot who can't make rational decisions.

And why would I "rewrite history"? Wouldn't I ignore you until your annoying childish antics finally exhausted themselves like everyone else is starting to do? Lay off me, man, maybe if you read the rules beforehand, after I asked you to do in our VERY LONG CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW YOU SHOULD NOT END GAMES WHEN PEOPLE ARE STILL PLAYING THEM conversation.

Man, you guys have a lot of time to piss away dont you.

jhood wrote:

While I am willing to take time to reiterate myself, you are merely creating "fuck jhood" posts on wbn.

I hate people whose only WBN posts consist of bashing other players.

CF

Ok, who's got the fucking Cliff Notes for this shit?

Der argues about usless shit, Jhood defends himself.

And in case der thinks im being bias towards him, thats not it, its just that your acctually arguing about useless shit.

[Jhood:] Lay off me, man, maybe if you read the rules beforehand, after I asked you to do in our VERY LONG CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW YOU SHOULD NOT END GAMES WHEN PEOPLE ARE STILL PLAYING THEM conversation.

Read the rules beforehand? HAHAHAHHA that's hilarious.... coming from the guy who banned me for 'killing a game i didn't spawn' (NOT against the rules) then explained that Brando wasn't banned because it was 'not a passworded strict' (ALSO not anywhere in the rules). You are a real piece of work - implying that I was the one who didn't know the rules, when you're the op - who should be MORE familiar with the rules? And the icing on the cake: Ops are supposed to WARN people and DISCUSS things with them when they break policy FOR THE FIRST TIME before banning them.

You told me the night before I was banned not to kill games other people mapped, maybe (you say you did, and I don't remember). So fine, why didn't you BAN BRANDO FOR WHAT YOU THOUGHT WAS A BREACH OF POLICY?

Yar, Nob, whether or not ops are (1) up to date on their policy before kicking/banning someone from mirc is a silly issue, what was i thinking? and (2) whether they are exercising their power for personal reasons rather than enforcing policy is also a dumb concern. You say I 'attacked' hood and he 'defended' himself? Well i was banned without warning (see again: Winbolo policy stating that ops should first warn an offender and discuss the issue before banning). I would say that I was the first attacked, thanks much.

All of that being said: we have debated this to death, and I'm willing to just let it go. Hood: for the most part, you're a friendly player and good sport, I don't see you rampantly abusing your ops privledges or anything or being unduly cruel to people in games. And in fact, I'd say you're rather level-headed in most of your dealings with others and helpful when people need help, or new players join. All of that being said, you do have those you like and don't like on #winbolo and I hope that hasn't and won't in the future effect op-based decisions.

So whatever. Maybe you were mad, maybe you just acted too quickly, or maybe your thoughts just didn't match up with your words. For my own part: maybe it's not that big of a deal, and I shouldn't expect so much out of ops who are, after all, only human.

Let's shake hands and kick this thing off the table.

-= Der