Page 3 of 6
Re: GunZ' banning by Jack.
Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 5:20 pm
by Mordack
This thread is locked until the Ombudsmen and the admins can look at it tomorrow.
The Spam section is back, all 'moderators' currently have permissions within the section.
Jack's permissions will be sorted out tomorrow by Bazsy.
Re: GunZ' banning by Jack.
Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 9:06 pm
by zeekomkommer
i'll take a look when i get back this evening to much to read now
Re: GunZ' banning by Jack.
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:21 am
by zeekomkommer
unlocked, but please stop inflows of post so i can read up please
Re: GunZ' banning by Jack.
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:33 am
by semper
Jack wrote:Semper wrote:@ Jack... Oh come off it... whether it was something personal between you and Clarkey or not.. this has been a long time coming for you. You've abused your powers for over a year and that's only the bit I am sure of.. the rest is too subjective to really mention.. but I won't say Clarkey is the first or even second admin to mention your attitude...not to mention the numerous mods.
My attitude? Oh yeah, you mean the fact I wasn't affraid to stand up to people? Kinda like what has been mentioned a hundred thousand times here.
noooo....
standing up to people.. and attitude are different things. Giving the admins attitude, the mods or people you're modding isn't necessary at all.. and should be done with in more respectful manners. You don't need to 'stand up to' the admins.. you're supposedly on the same team as them. If you're only going to see them as a force to be stood up to.. then it's not hard to see where problems might arise already.
Re: GunZ' banning by Jack.
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:42 am
by zeekomkommer
okey i (finaly) got trough the entire thread (please ppl clifnotes !). and what i can say now is that :
gunz should have taken his vendetta against that thread to this or another section wich is made for the purpous of handleing complaints like this and his replys were spam in that thread.
however i can fully relate to him. he wants best for the forum and i can see why he has problems like a thread being there when being a father. mature ppl are used to more but this is a family game aswell. now i don't completly disagree with jack banning gunz and JT if it was to give them a time to calm down.
the 2nd and 3th warning were just given to gunz when he was posting in full rage. if gunz was not blinded by it on the moment of the post he would have never gotten a 2nd and 3th warning then he would have gone trough the propper chanals.
now what i'm thinking off is to make 1 warning stick and turning 1 into a verbal warning given gunz was a relative clean history on the forum. i'm not out on the 3th warning. but to me a tripple warning on such short time is a bit much. i mean we are only human.
now is my thinking path somewhat agreeable to both mods and users ?
Re: GunZ' banning by Jack.
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:51 am
by Jack
I can't remember what exactly it was that I said, and I can't really be assed to remember. So I'll just give a run down of the facts.
Gunz was trolling the thread, he was asked to stop by several mods and many users. He then insulted and berated the mods and users. So I stepped in and told him to stop, I also told him where to take his complaints. He refused to comply and as such was warned
once, he continued to refuse compliance, and was subsequently warned a second and third time for two other posts.
The Temple has a history of coming down hard on those that seek only to cause trouble, there have been several such people warned and even banned because of it. The Temple has also had a history of coming down hard on those that would insult others in a serious fashion, again, there have been instances where people were warned and banned for it.
RDR3777 one of many examples, warned for calling someone an **Filtered**, that wouldn't get you warned in the rest of the forum, but the Temple is sacred ground.
I can't really think of any other examples, and unfortunately with the Temple's deletion, I can't go rummaging for any. But if you ask the misc mods, especially the older misc mods, they will tell that is true that we come down hard on trouble makers.
I think there was another point I wanted to make, but I've forgotten it now.
TL;DR
- Trolling in the Temple is strictly forbidden.
- Gunz was trolling, told not to.
- Gunz failed to comply and was warned accordingly.
- Gunz did not listen and kept on, therefore warned a second time.
- Gunz again failed to listen, therefore earning himself a third warning, and as a consequence a two week ban.
Semper wrote:noooo....
standing up to people.. and attitude are different things. Giving the admins attitude, the mods or people you're modding isn't necessary at all.. and should be done with in more respectful manners. You don't need to 'stand up to' the admins.. you're supposedly on the same team as them. If you're only going to see them as a force to be stood up to.. then it's not hard to see where problems might arise already.
@the mods: Case in point.
Re: GunZ' banning by Jack.
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:55 am
by moses
Earendil wrote:He was told several times toget out if he had an issue with the thread and/or temple and not just by mods, reducing them would be silly and you might as well just make it tougher to give warnings,which you can't do.
There have been a few instances onthe forums where several warnings were given out over a short period of time.
Re: GunZ' banning by Jack.
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:56 am
by zeekomkommer
yes i know it has happened before but i look @ other factors aswell.
- gunz isn't known as a eal troublemaker but he can be hotheaded when he thinks he's right
- up till yesterday he only had gotten 1 warning since 2006 wich i call fairly well behaving as a user
- he should haev known better but don't we all do stupid things when we are in rage ?
now i know gunz he woudn't have stopped if you hadn't banned him. but when given a time to cool down he would have done the right thing
Re: GunZ' banning by Jack.
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:56 am
by zeekomkommer
moses of romania wrote:Earendil wrote:He was told several times toget out if he had an issue with the thread and/or temple and not just by mods, reducing them would be silly and you might as well just make it tougher to give warnings,which you can't do.
There have been a few instances onthe forums where several warnings were given out over a short period of time.
verbal warning for spam in ombudsman section, full warning next time.
Re: GunZ' banning by Jack.
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:00 am
by zeekomkommer
yeah so i would have been for a short ban to give him time to cool down
Re: GunZ' banning by Jack.
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:03 am
by Zeratul
speaking as user: a few hours of ban is better than 3 warnings and a ban...
Re: GunZ' banning by Jack.
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:05 am
by Jack
zeekomkommer wrote:yes i know it has happened before but i look @ other factors aswell.
- gunz isn't known as a eal troublemaker but he can be hotheaded when he thinks he's right
- up till yesterday he only had gotten 1 warning since 2006 wich i call fairly well behaving as a user
- he should haev known better but don't we all do stupid things when we are in rage ?
now i know gunz he woudn't have stopped if you hadn't banned him. but when given a time to cool down he would have done the right thing
Would you not agree that having a two week vacation from the forums is a cool down time? We can't let people go on rampages just because they have previously been "not so bad."
I mean he had 3 chances from when I showed up to calm down and take it to the appropriate section(which is more than what I give most people, I typically give double warnings for continuing to disobey an order, and they stick). Honestly I think this will be a good learning experience for him. Had he just calmed down and gone to the right place, it would have had a much better outcome. And had he tried to approach the issue in a calm and intelligent matter, it might have even ended in his favor. Let this be a lesson to him, he can not just throw hissy fits in the middle of the floor and expect to get his way, but if you repeal the legitimate warnings and unban him, you will effectively be condoning his actions and he will learn nothing.
Zeratul wrote:speaking as user: a few hours of ban is better than 3 warnings and a ban...
And if I banned him for three hours I would have been fired on the spot for "power abuse," so forgive my abrasiveness, but FRAK THAT.
Re: GunZ' banning by Jack.
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:40 am
by semper
Earendil wrote:Zeratul wrote:speaking as user: a few hours of ban is better than 3 warnings and a ban...
yes it is Zera But you also have to see what all has been said as well.
1) he was asked by many not to post and block the temple if he had an issue AND/OR take it the the propper place if he did have an issue
2) he didn't and kept at it
3) he was warned once and kept at it until he was warned two more times.
4) I, as a Mod,feel that he would of kept at it if it was only a short hour ban or so.
...jack said it all before as well...
1 - Most of which were rude and uncompromising however the point stands that in the SPAM temple.. there, by definition, are no rules in regards to keeping on topic and I have seen many occasions where many have opposed a certain type of post (such as thaleks pointless post's with just a smiley in it) however this has been allowed to continue.
2 - I would have too until such a thread was locked or I had at least been given the same respect by which I had approached the issue.. something Gunz did very impersonally and fairly considering his beliefs on the issue and there'd have been hell to pay should I have been warned once, let a lone 3 times and banned.
The first line of the mod dealing with Gunz opened with "shut up now" and was followed with a statement that shares sentiments with "it's my way or the highway because this is my forums".
3 - The first warnings and even some of the basis for the later warnings are questionable due to the fact Jack changed and edited spam section policy during the incident and he did so without an admins approval something which he is not allowed to do (and I can get a quote from an admin to prove that and unless an admin is directly willing to testify contrary to the point I don't think jack had the permissions to make and change such rules at his own discretion).
4 - fair enough.
Re: GunZ' banning by Jack.
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:46 am
by deni
Zeratul wrote:speaking as user: a few hours of ban is better than 3 warnings and a ban...
Then, as an Admin, change the forum rules accordingly and give the mods the right to ban users for a short period of time in order for them to cool down.
As it stands now, the rules do not permit this.
In this light, Jack's actions were the only way to stop GunZ from trolling the forum and posting aggressively in the Temple with the SOLE intention to stir up trouble.
Re: GunZ' banning by Jack.
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:48 am
by Zeratul
ok, we'll discuss such with the others... (wording, regulations etc. for it)