mathlord banned

[whereub]

Just to reinforce this. Anyone posting that is not in this war (unless wishing either side fun) then posts will be removed as spam and warnings issued as I have now had to post in this thread 3 times.

everyone please not this before posting. this is an official warning made by a forum moderator. if you breack this rule you will recieve a warning. the warnings made by moderators to players who breack this rule will not be undone by the ombudsmen.

the rules count for everyone
enjoy the war everyone and keep the topic clean

good to see that post quoted, tite after it i reported 3 post that were personal attack through players/alliance and off topic (related to fua vs ttf) all were closed.

but good to see this thread is back at war stuff

Dumbass.



Anyway, I just banned Mathlord and Lithium. Who's next? Anyone? Any volunteers? No? K then, let the war resume.

he is a part of this war , while not in ta massers he was invited to join the war by nemsis sect

he was wrongfully banned and it should be lifted , if you could please look into this it would be appreciated

on a side note to the same ban - lithium was banned for posting and noobert posted after the warning was put up but he was not banned

[semper]

Minister for the prosecution present...

Shaun 'Semper' Roger...Stefani.... Garrett.

I shall make this short and brief. The defence has pointed out several things of notice.

Firstly the fact that Nemesis Sect invited Mathlords participation in the war. I do not dispute this. On the contrary I actually support the defences present testimony that in fact mathlord has committed no crimes within the thread that none of the other participants have not. As such I personally recommend his ban immediately lifted. (Please look at Item A)

In the matter of Lithium however, he was not invited to the thread, no formal or informal statement of his participation was acknowledge beyond responses to his post's which were neither wanted or relevant. His attempts at arguments and 'valid' points were usually nonsense and illogical to the point of absurdity. Where as, had TA massers formally stated Lithiums participation I would willingly accept, and offer my aid on their part. This is not the case, and Lithium's ban should remain after he deliberately ignored a mod and continued to post 'spam' in the war thread.

As for Noobert. He was invited by Nemesis to participate in the discussion and as we have been allowed to invite Mathlord a supporter of TA massers into the war I see no reason why Nooberts participation as an aid of Nemesis is any different (Item C). I do not debate the possibility that his post's contents may have been offensive or harmful, but they were no more so than anyone elses, and lesser than some of the statements made by members of the TA massers. (please look at item B). I defend Nooberts actions and make the point that any further disciplinary action taken against him beyond the suspension of his mod position (which has already occurred) as being unfair and highly prejudice of an FUALL member by a TTF Ombudsman/admins. If you are going to punish him for his post's, then you need to punish every participant of that thread equally and in the same manner, save those who have merely stopped by to wish the best.

In summary, a lot of hot headed post's and a lot of mischievous intentions on the Sects part to wind up the TA massers did bear a lot of fruit and created an aggressive series of events. Mathlord responded en kind to his invitation and that orchestrated situation in no lesser ways than anyone else. Lithium had no place in that thread beyond his best wishes for the TA Massers and his punishment should remain as it is. Noobert has his punishment, I suggest it be left static for the pre-determined period of time. As a final summary, had a certain mod stuck to their word to begin with, the thread may have retained a more tunnel direction and stood less violently.

Judging by the number of post's though it would have been difficult and I do not blame the mod, however when assessing the current situation I remind the Ombudsman to keep this in mind. I am now thankful for jack's ruthless involvement.

Item A[spoiler]Item A[/spoiler]

Towards the bottom of the page, about 3/4 the way down, and onto the next page where if memory serves I formally accept his position in the war.

Item B[spoiler]Item B[/spoiler] top of the page and further down, Jack has edited them, but has put in his reasons what they were.

Item C[spoiler]Item C[/spoiler] It is stated on the first page that Noobert's comments were accepted by Nemesis. This was for several reasons, firstly the fact he has a personal and sever war thing going with TA massers, and further more I like Noobert and he was supporting us. This was of course complimented by our acceptance of Mathlord on the side of the TA massers and my subsequent defence of him.

and yes. That was short.. and brief.

[Manetheren]

Thanks for the post semper. The fact that the leader of the opposing alliance states that Mathlord is indeed in the war would seem to make this case clear cut.

Mathlord just added himself to this war as well, For being a little punk with a big mouth.

I will wait a few hours before posting a final decision in case someone else has something to add.

[Noobert]

I was told to get out multiple times by Mathlord and Co, even though I was given a spot to post from page one. I still had to prove to Buck that I should be allowed in that thread.

Mathlord deserves the same chance as I had to prove that he deserves to be posting in that thread, but warnings should still stand as my punishment still stands for the same circumstances as his(not being able to post, and ignoring moderator warnings resulted in my punishment of 2 weeks).

[Clarkey]

I had said right from the start that Mathlord was a part of the war. Yet again I become undermined.


Mr Ombudsman, if it ends up that this ruling stands then I suggest either of the two:

1 - You unban Mathlord, revoke the warning, and ban him from Mod duties for 14 days to be fair as was done with Noobert and ~FreeSpirit~

2 - You keep the warning in place and you issue warnings to Noobert and ~FreeSpirit~


But in all honesty I said Mathlord was involved in the war directly, and he should never have been issued a warning nor banned.

[Noobert]

Mr Ombudsman, if it ends up that this ruling stands then I suggest either of the two:

1 - You unban Mathlord, revoke the warning, and ban him from Mod duties for 14 days to be fair as was done with Noobert and ~FreeSpirit~

2 - You keep the warning in place and you issue warnings to Noobert and ~FreeSpirit~

If I receive a warning, then the punishment should be removed from my suspention. No? Same with FreeSpirit. I'm going to be PM'ing Manetheran and Zeekomkommer directly with this right now anyways to plead my case.

[semper]

1 - You unban Mathlord, revoke the warning, and ban him from Mod duties for 14 days to be fair as was done with Noobert and ~FreeSpirit~

This is the only truly acceptable path, Ombudsman..please see that it is done if you can and the admins/mods do realise what happened, if not just do your best to mitigate Mathlords punishment. I presented the argument for your benefit and to address the admins.(Ombudsman Definition - just in case you think I am over stepping my mark).

I think however, a bigger issue of this, than is needs to be, may be arising.

Like I said, Mathlord did no more than most of the others that have not been punished, and a lot less than the ones that have.

Clarkey, buddy... you should have done more. I respect for what reasons you may or may not have and all that, but when a thread is as fast and aggressive as that you need to be on your feet my friend otherwise things like this do happen. Just a bit of friendly feedback.

[zeekomkommer]

okey where do i stat,

mathlords banning wasn't justifyed becausse mathlord was a part of the war against nemesis sector. so manetheren go ahead and undo that banning.

clarkey, we cannot simply removes mathlords modeator permisions for him posting in the thread whilst being in the war. it was clearly stated that both noobert and freespirit lost their moderator permissions becausse they openly defyed a fellow moderator about the rules he was stating. other ppl did not openly defy them.

I defend Nooberts actions and make the point that any further disciplinary action taken against him beyond the suspension of his mod position (which has already occurred) as being unfair and highly prejudice of an FUALL member by a TTF Ombudsman/admins.

ingame sides have nothing to do about a punishment being given faily or unfairly. note that the ombudsman does not have the power to remove a moderator of his powers. only the admins of this game can.

on another note: the admins hav clearly stated that mods apealing to a descision to remove their powers can only apeal to the admins directly. the ombudsman holds no juristiction in that department


now for lithium, that is going to have to be investigated. he got warned for posting in that section. from what lithium told m he got 2 warnings for 1 post and that's something that has to be investigated.

zeekomkommer

[Noobert]

I cannot defy a rule that does not apply to me, Zeek. Let alone three times when ONLY ONE piece of evidence was provided.

Do not forget, I have been waiting an entire day for a response from Lore. No response. The only response I have received was from Buck who I sent a giant piece post to, as I did to both Ombudsman, only to be told he was on it and not hear another thing from him.

I do not trust Robe for many reasons. Why? She hates FUALL. She hates me. As well she thinks this.

12/4/2008 7:57:19 PM XXXXX ₪۩۞۩₪ Ѥøßꮆ. ™ ₪۩۞۩₪ lol i had a convo with robe a while ago lol she doesnt like u or deni lol
12/4/2008 7:57:28 PM ₪۩۞۩₪ Ѥøßꮆ. ™ ₪۩۞۩₪ XXXXX I know.
12/4/2008 7:57:34 PM ₪۩۞۩₪ Ѥøßꮆ. ™ ₪۩۞۩₪ XXXXX It is quiet obvious.
12/4/2008 7:57:47 PM XXXXX ₪۩۞۩₪ Ѥøßꮆ. ™ ₪۩۞۩₪ she thinks FUALL mods are pissed because now the "power" u all hold is disappearing

She also called me a "undermining little **Filtered**" but that is another story.

My point is, how can I get into contact with them when NOBODY IS REPLYING?! Not to mention that I can't defy a rule that doesn't apply to me..let alone three times.

There are so many unanswered questions and nobody is stepping up to answer them because of this messed up situation. I have been patiently waiting. I am more then happy to serve my "two week suspention" if somebody would just give me questions to my answers because I am utterly tired of going unanswered for months now when serious problems arise.

[Clarkey]

clarkey, we cannot simply removes mathlords modeator permisions for him posting in the thread whilst being in the war. it was clearly stated that both noobert and freespirit lost their moderator permissions becausse they openly defyed a fellow moderator about the rules he was stating. other ppl did not openly defy them.

Zeek, I only stated this IF it were to be found that Mathlord should have been treated the same way as Noobert and FreeSpirit. I did not say this is what should take place.

[Jack]

he is a part of this war , while not in ta massers he was invited to join the war by nemsis sect

he was wrongfully banned and it should be lifted , if you could please look into this it would be appreciated

on a side note to the same ban - lithium was banned for posting and noobert posted after the warning was put up but he was not banned

Noobert doesn't have 3 warnings, therefore wouldn't be banned anyway.

Lithium's ban will remain, period.


As for Mathlord's warning, I saw that he posted and that he was not in TA Massers, so going by what Zeek quoted I warned and banned Mathlord.

now for lithium, that is going to have to be investigated. he got warned for posting in that section. from what lithium told m he got 2 warnings for 1 post and that's something that has to be investigated.

zeekomkommer[/color]

Whomever told you that was lying. You can see for yourself here mcp.php?i=notes&mode=user_notes&u=11034


Any questions forward them to me via MSN, using PMs annoys me.


Oh and one last thing, there are times when we hand out multiple warnings for a single offense. It's standard practice for violations that are considered more serious then your average infraction and thus handled accordingly.

[Clarkey]

As for Mathlord's warning, I saw that he posted and that he was not in TA Massers, so going by what Zeek quoted I warned and banned Mathlord.

But warnings were not issued to Noobert and FreeSpirit. They were dealt with by the Admins, therefore if ANY punishment should be given to Mathlord it should be the same as the other two.

[Noobert]

But warnings were not issued to Noobert and FreeSpirit. They were dealt with by the Admins, therefore if ANY punishment should be given to Mathlord it should be the same as the other two.

I have a question Clarkey.

I was not given a warning, but you moved my posts as you thought they were off-topic and spam even though on the first page it clearly said I was allowed to post not to mention it had relevance to the topic at hand.

Now..my question is, if this is my punishment for posting even though I was allowed does this not mean the punishment should be removed?

[Tekki]

It seems to me that we have a misunderstanding about who was involved in the war, as it involved/s parties who are not in the alliances.

As Semper has stated both Mathlord and Noobert, neither of whom are in Nemesis Sect or TA Massers, were both invited into the war by Nemesis Sect.

Now we have Noobert, who has had his mod powers revoked for two weeks for posting attempting to undermine another mod. However, the charge is that he was attempting to undermine another mod by continuing to post, but he was invited to post by the war participants. I know the ombudsman/men can do nothing about the mod powers but I bring this up for comparison.

Similarly Mathlord has been banned for posting while not involved in the war, but he too was invited to participate.

Lithium was not invited and was posting regardless of the warnings and advice given by the Mod Clarkey.

However, the case does beg the issue of how much can non involved but interested parties post in a GC thread because unless I'm mistaken there is no formal ruling that they may not post, it's merely done on the request of participants and in this case, they invited outside parties.

[Clarkey]

IF there was an issue about my ruling in that thread then the correct process is for the issue to be handled via the Ombudsman. The correct process is NOT to ignore and undermine my ruling and continue until further action (whether right or wrong) is taken.

No-one took the ruling to the Ombudsman, therefore no-one took the right process.

NOW it gets brought to the Ombudsman because further action WAS taken.