Page 5 of 6
Re: GunZ' banning by Jack.
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:14 pm
by Jack
GunZ wrote:
If the game admins and mods this this has a place in a forum for a war game , you need to re-boot your brain.
GunZ wrote:
To the mod or mods s that banned him...get a life and get your head out of yer arse.
Yeah, real intelligent.
Re: GunZ' banning by Jack.
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:22 pm
by semper
Jack wrote:GunZ wrote:
If the game admins and mods this this has a place in a forum for a war game , you need to re-boot your brain.
GunZ wrote:
To the mod or mods s that banned him...get a life and get your head out of yer arse.
Yeah, real intelligent.
Yes.. post's made when antagonised...something which I have not denied did come about
and something which does not absolve your sins in this matter leading to Gunz banning or the question of your modding.
Re: GunZ' banning by Jack.
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:24 pm
by BenjaminMS
The topic seems to be gone. So I cannot look back at it. But I am under the impression you're quoting very selective Jack.
@ Semper: no need to insult anyone else
@ Deni: same
@ Clarkey: !
@ the others... from what I gather from reading through here, it seems to me there existed an thread with some form of porn or something like that. I fully understand that GunZ went mad at it, certainly with Jack's comment at MSN. Although I also understand that GunZ went too far - the quotes tell me that much.
HOWEVER... provoking, changing rules 'during the game' and then giving not only a (seems fair) first warning, but also a second and third one, which seem to be based upon the changed rules, is totally uncalled for - and it seems fair to me that GunZ receives his punisment (keeping the first warning for sure and maybe the 2nd), but that Jack also (temporary?) loses his modship, considering his past history regarding modding and use of powers.
-Ben
Re: GunZ' banning by Jack.
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:26 pm
by ~Vix~
Zeek, you've said it yourself and i agree, GunZ should of simply been given a cool down period. IMO, he's been given it, he should be unbanned now. GunZ has had a good record on the forums and if you've spoke to him 1on1 you'll see thats his a nice down to Earth guy. I am asking the Admins to unban GunZ now. He has served his time, so to say. Jack however, that issue needs to be sorted, however that is it too the Admins.
Re: GunZ' banning by Jack.
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:28 pm
by semper
~Vixion~ wrote:Zeek, you've said it yourself and i agree, GunZ should of simply been given a cool down period. IMO, he's been given it, he should be unbanned now. GunZ has had a good record on the forums and if you've spoke to him 1on1 you'll see thats his a nice down to Earth guy. I am asking the Admins to unban GunZ now. He has served his time, so to say. Jack however, that issue needs to be sorted, however that is it too the Admins.
here here!
I agree.
Re: GunZ' banning by Jack.
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:29 pm
by Jack
Those were either his first and second or third posts, posts that occurred long before I ever showed up. So if it was ok for Gunz to post that "because he was antagonized"(which is bull anyway, Earendil and co. will attest to that) then by the same rule of thumb, my post was equally acceptable.
BenjaminMS wrote:HOWEVER... provoking, changing rules 'during the game'
That is not true, no rules were changed. Again, for those that want to actually get to the bottom of things and see that justice is served as opposed to simply joining the mob and lynching the first person you, you should ask the long time spammers and misc mods about it.
Re: GunZ' banning by Jack.
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:31 pm
by semper
Jack wrote:Those were either his first and second or third posts, posts that occurred long before I ever showed up. So if it was ok for Gunz to post that "because he was antagonized"(which is bull anyway, Earendil and co. will attest to that) then by the same rule of thumb, my post was equally acceptable.
My boy... you're a mod... in no way was it acceptable. I think we can all agree that one of the primary roles of a mod is to set a stern example when modding, one of respectful behaviour.
Re: GunZ' banning by Jack.
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:15 pm
by BMMJ13
BenjaminMS wrote:The topic seems to be gone. So I cannot look back at it. But I am under the impression you're quoting very selective Jack.
@ Semper: no need to insult anyone else
@ Deni: same
@ Clarkey: !
@ the others... from what I gather from reading through here, it seems to me there existed an thread with some form of porn or something like that. I fully understand that GunZ went mad at it, certainly with Jack's comment at MSN. Although I also understand that GunZ went too far - the quotes tell me that much.
HOWEVER... provoking, changing rules 'during the game' and then giving not only a (seems fair) first warning, but also a second and third one, which seem to be based upon the changed rules, is totally uncalled for - and it seems fair to me that GunZ receives his punisment (keeping the first warning for sure and maybe the 2nd), but that Jack also (temporary?) loses his modship, considering his past history regarding modding and use of powers.
-Ben
People seem to make assumptions now after the fact since the thread was deleted. It was in no way pornographic, and was meant as a discussion thread but turned into a few posting images. The most sexual content these images would have contained is heavy kissing, which you could just as easily see while walking on the street.
Provoking definitely occurred as this whole reason, Gunz coming into a thread and telling them what to think / do with the thread is provocation. It was basically a runaway nuclear reaction after that point.
Based on some of the mods comments, I can see what they had said about Gunz likely continuing to post. In that case, it seems like the forum needs new bans. 1 hour for 1 warning, 24 hours for 2 warnings and then the 2 weeks for 3 warnings. Why is it 3 strikes and you are out? This would allow cool down from a thread and give immediate consequences to what had occurred, although we may be just as likely arguing about whether a lesser ban was necessary.
You may not like Jack and what he does, but he is what forum needs.
tetris wrote:Being respectful should be the first rule. Disrespecting users is just as bad as what clarkey did, deleting a section and banning users.
Yes I can see how being strong armed with troublemakers is just as bad as deleting a mod
he personally see as out of control and deleting a section which many many users visit. If clarkey ever comes back to this forum as an admin I would likely have to finally leave...
Re: GunZ' banning by Jack.
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 11:25 pm
by Zeratul
clarkey is not returning as admin... at all...
Re: GunZ' banning by Jack.
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 11:28 pm
by Jack
Tetrismonkey wrote:IMO Jack thinks he's btter than the rest of the community just becuase he's a mod.
Your opinion would be horribly wrong.
Re: GunZ' banning by Jack.
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:06 am
by Lithium
yes Tetrismonkey is right , i d like to see if jack would be around forums if he could be striped at all one day so he can learn what he forgot while he was mod.
Re: GunZ' banning by Jack.
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:19 am
by zeekomkommer
~Vixion~ wrote:I'm not talking about levels of relevance, I'm saying if it is or not. Sempers post shows direct problems with Jack, how he is acting and behaving which helps the Ombudsman in his investigation. It shows him some examples of Jacks handy work and some facts also. Your post is just your opinion, if your allowed to do it, can 100 other forum users do it to? and to quote you Deni,"If it is needed or not is not for you to decide." Its for the Ombudsman. Thats working off your logic, so it must be right, yeah? So if 100 people now all post here saying what they think, or if i do it to EVERY Ombudsman thread here, its not for you to delete or anything... I mean, I'm working off your logic here... Tbh, when i posted this i KNEW it would be spammed. I was hoping for a mod or two to keep an eye on it. However, spammed by a green title... i'll be honest. Didn't see it coming.
mods can't use their powers in the ombudsman section and i'm not capable of modding the thread constantly due to my computer crashing. my new one will arive on saturday and then i'll be able to monitor everything better
Re: GunZ' banning by Jack.
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:48 am
by Jim
Right, finally read through all of that.
Im going to have to talk to zeek but im pretty sure a couple of warnings(verbal and otherwise) will be handed out for spam. Please think about what you are going to post and if it adds to the topic at all or not. If you wish to reply to an individual post, take it to PM's with them or something.
Due to Clarkey's actions i am unable to read the Lesbian thread and the posts contained therein. Thus, I rely heavily on Zeek for this issue.
I am inclined to say that 3 warnings was too much in such a short space of time though Gunz was wrong in not taking his issue to the correct section.
So i agree with zeeks previous thoughts generally.
Also, I am in favor of the short bans for short periods of time. BMM's idea sounded good to me about the time periods for each ban.
I realize this will not solve everything, but in this case it may have encouraged Gunz to talk to somebody on msn about it (mod, admin, ombuds) before carrying on.
I am also unable to look up the issue on the rule changes thanks to Clarkey, but anyone that claims to be an old repetitive visitor to the temple should PM me or add me on MSN for talks about the issue.
I should have most of the spam cleared, one way or another, from this thread soon enough.
Much love
Jim
Re: GunZ' banning by Jack.
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 8:03 am
by Jack
Man Called Jim wrote:I am inclined to say that 3 warnings was too much in such a short space of time though Gunz was wrong in not taking his issue to the correct section.
Then what would you have had me do? Allow a user to continually violate the rules? He was given a verbal warning at first, I didn't even have to do that. I could have warned him on the spot for the insults he threw out. But I did give him a chance, he had a choice and he made it. The only person that is responsible for that choice is him.
People said that I was rude. But we are talking about a person that came into the Temple, a place that is repeatedly described as a safe haven from all the crap in sections like general and the GC, with the sole intent of bullying people until he got his way. So yeah, you're right, I was rude to him. He did not deserve any respect from me and therefore got none. That is not a crime and most the people complaining about it are just as rude if not more so on a near daily basis.
Re: GunZ' banning by Jack.
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 8:10 am
by Jim
It is possible if the situation was dealt with in a different manner then Gunz would have calmed down and not escalated his attempt.
However, that is only a possibility.
Also, as i said Jack, i havnt read the thread so cant give as good a argument as i would like to, and am relying on Zeek.
Furthermore, you say he "violated the rules" but there is controversy that I have seen little evidence for or against, about what these rules were at the time of him posting.
Utter pain that i cant read it now.