Locke wrote:

Also, you might want to stop the "its dsay you can't moderate it" stuff. I'm not policing dsay, I just said not to do one simple little thing that was getting out of hand, and boom, I get three replies just asking for it as soon as I say that. If I can't moderate it, I'm sure Gaku would have said something when I told him exactly what I did. I banned people over something they said on dsay, so apparently, when it comes to certain things, I can moderate dsay.

Logical fallacy. Admins aren't above the rules. In the rules topic this paragraph:

"Domain say is unfiltered, and those will be watched by the lords of said domains, who can deal with troublesome members themselves; same with psay. If you don't like how your domain's leaders control the channel, then you need to either talk to them, or leave the domain. This does not mean you are allowed to make personal attacks, or try to grief a fellow player. If you do not get along with someone, being in the same domain is in no way a good idea."

You said you can moderate Dsay because you banned people over something they said on Dsay. But the rule is Domain Say is unfiltered. You couldn't moderate it in the first place. So in the end you can't moderate Dsay. Even if an admin requests something it doesn't mean it has to be followed if it's wrong, like telling someone to grief or block another player. So telling them if they talk about the name rules one more time and it's a week-ban isn't an excuse to ban people, as discussing the name rules isn't against the rules OR not allowed on Dsay.

That's a completely logical response itself, and yours is not, Locke. You made a mistake, and I want to step in now because apparently it's just growing, what with the no-clipping or gm-invis thing to escape PKing. The only problem now is you just not accepting this, and you said you only took the job to moderate FFTerulia. You're just making things worse.

Please stop.

_________________________________________

Hi Ben, let's be friends.

That points to the comment someone made earlier about using admin-say to announce "No more jokes about naming rules".


Really though Locke, be perfectly honest with me here. Don't you think a week-long ban for a one-liner joke is complete overkill? With no realistic amount of warning even. I mean banning them period is over-the-top when you have other options like mute or boot (to the best of my knowledge that is) to show your serious. But I mean a one or 2 day ban is more reasonable. You really flew off the handle with this one week **** though.

You can say you were just having a ****ed up day and were pissed at the time, I'll forgive you. And accept the fact that all the arguing afterwards was a result of everyone going about it the usual wrong way to have the punishment rescinded and just pissed you off more.

We're all human dawg.

_________________________________________

Think about it like this Desh, once this argument ends, the ban will probably be over.

A week really is not some terrible punishment. Take it like a man and learn from it. Don't cross the line in the sand.

_________________________________________

Lumino wrote:

Think about it like this Desh, once this argument ends, the ban will probably be over.

A week really is not some terrible punishment. Take it like a man and learn from it. Don't cross the line in the sand.

Blindly following gets people far.

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

Gaku already agreed with Locke's decision, who has absolute authority over this. Why is this being debated still?

_________________________________________

I actually thought it was funny that Cea made a comment about blind following considering how pissed he got when everyone blasted/argued with him when he was an Admin.

He wants other people to follow him, but not other people in the same position if he doesn't agree with them?

In any event, please see my previous picture.

_________________________________________

Lumino wrote:

Think about it like this Desh, once this argument ends, the ban will probably be over.

A week really is not some terrible punishment. Take it like a man and learn from it. Don't cross the line in the sand.

I think what you're not getting is that there was no line in the sand to begin with. Are you really against people wanting the rules to be followed by the people responsible for doing so? Why follow admins in the first place if they won't follow their own rules? Because you seem to just support people with authority just because they have authority.

Everyone digs into you because you support dictatorship, bottom-line. If you do agree with that then I'm sorry for mistaking you for someone that was for what's right or whatever, since that's the impression you give off.

Edit: Cea and I would argue with people who broke the rules. It's not the same thing as the entire game except people who can't read the topic at hand versus Locke.

_________________________________________

Lumino wrote:

I actually thought it was funny that Cea made a comment about blind following considering how pissed he got when everyone blasted/argued with him when he was an Admin.

He wants other people to follow him, but not other people in the same position if he doesn't agree with them?

In any event, please see my previous picture.

When some one is in the wrong you shouldn't be backing them like so. When you have a team of admins that logically discuss rules and come to an ultimatum that's different.

_________________________________________

FFO is not a democracy Sinsie. There are rules set in place by one, all controlling power.

Wake up, it IS a dictatorship.

Those in power can enforce the rules in any way they see fit, and we have little power to stop them. I would have had a problem if Locke banned them with no warning, but he did not. He issued a warning, he drew the line in the sand, and they all ran across it.

The total authority told you not to do something, and you do it. Why do we scream that this is abuse? Stop acting like you have rights on FFO.

FFO is a dictatorship, plain and simple. The ability to play it is a privileged, not a right. They give you an even playing field, without god stats and GMs thrown around for five bucks. The rules set in place are the price for it.

If you aren't willing to pay the price, you don't get the product.

_________________________________________

I like your picture Lumino.

_________________________________________

Thanks Magnus. :D

_________________________________________

Lumino wrote:

FFO is not a democracy Sinsie. There are rules set in place by one, all controlling power.

Wake up, it IS a dictatorship.

Those in power can enforce the rules in any way they see fit, and we have little power to stop them. I would have had a problem if Locke banned them with no warning, but he did not. He issued a warning, he drew the line in the sand, and they all ran across it.

The total authority told you not to do something, and you do it. Why do we scream that this is abuse? Stop acting like you have rights on FFO.

FFO is a dictatorship, plain and simple. The ability to play it is a privileged, not a right. They give you an even playing field, without god stats and GMs thrown around for five bucks. The rules set in place are the price for it.

If you aren't willing to pay the price, you don't get the product.

It's ironic he was completely opposite when Sinsie and I were admins... Haha

_________________________________________

What can I say, people grow, mature, and change as time goes on. I hope you weren't the same as you were years ago.

_________________________________________

Right now it IS a dictatorship. You can argue that "Gaku is the dictator" all you want, but he's not the one moderating right now.

What we need is to revert to the old 3 admin team to control moderation so that you can't have one person handing out bans over frivolous nonsense like this cause they were (apparently) pissed at the moment. I don't think any 2 other people (if given admin) would truly have agreed with this ban at the drop of the hat.

If anything if one admin has to go report to the other 2 before the ban can be approved it forces him to stop and truly consider if the crime is worth the effort of removing the person from the game temporarily. Bans are something to keep harmful, degenerative delinquents from continuously causing players grief or putting them at some harsh disadvantage.

Supported by actual game changing updates such as guards moving players blocking them (Guard AI abuse, pioneered by Norkia) or doors being forced open (Guard AI abuse, pioneered by Dean and the current Shyronites, including myself even), or being cubed for killing partied newbies (Pioneered by Black and Knizia). People doing things like that are ones that deserve bans.

A one-line joke at the expense of a raging admin isn't something that should be ban worthy. Everyone jokes about Rule #14 being the "I am God" rule, but there's a buzz word at the core of that rule that makes it less of a fix-all than we act like it is: "14. The administrative team of FFO and Terulia reserves the right to moderate anything should it be deemed exceptional, even if it is not something in the rules."

I hope Locke doesn't truly believe any jokes (or PKs) at his expense are worthy of being deemed *exceptional*.


I'd also like to put out that the rule even starts off saying "The administrative TEAM" as a very good sign it's better to have checks and balances than a single player with unlimited power over others.


I won't lie, back when we had trials every other day about people (usually Vigo and zkiller, or black) being banned it was ****ing annoying cause my parties would break up to go attend it. But I think a happy medium should be reached where the admins simply have a trial (per say, more like a caucaus) between themselves to see if this person really did something harmful to the game.

See the problem here Lumino, is that the "line in the sand" was firstly drawn very vaguely, if at all. A quick comment made on dsay by a character recently revealed to be the administrator about all the joking comments being thrown on a supposedly unmoderated channel isn't exactly a "line in the sand" if you see what I'm saying. If Locke had used Admin Say to forbid anymore joking on any public channels, then this ban would be a LOT more sensible. Or maybe a warning mute THEN ban.

The other problem I'm seeing here is that there was no disciplinary ladder, if you'll forgive how juvenile that sounds. There was no lead up into it, I can almost guarantee not one of them knew they were in for a week long ban.

So you say "It's not that bad, take the ban like a man". I say "The admin needs to take the joke like a man, and be more level headed when delegating punishment."

_________________________________________

Solid points made, I can't really dispute them. Mind you I will still support Locke's right to make that decision, but I do agree that a Moderation team is a better alternative to this then 'My Word versus Yours'. Of course, that all comes into play after the fact, doesn't it?

It may have been a bit vague, that is very true, but it doesn't excuse the punishment. Yeah it was extreme and without real harm, but it is done now. Instead of trying to overturn it, we should be trying to find a peaceful solution to fix it in the future.

The problem being that most of the board conveys this desire for change with insults, superiority complexes, and circular logic. It's difficult to really find a solid argument without one of those three on either side.

This is why I like disagreeing with Deshawn, because it ensures I will always get at least one opponent who brings a well thought out argument to the table without veiled insults or 'how are you so stupid comments' thrown in.

_________________________________________

Lumino, the only problem with all that is that admins aren't dictators. They don't have absolute power. They have the potential to be like that, but are trusted not to. That is the entire point and always has been.

The reason you don't get a good argument back to you in your case is because you don't even know what you're talking about. Stop blaming us for your own fault. :/

_________________________________________

Sinsie, if you cut out that last line, it would have been a perfect post. Was adding in the jab really needed?

I think Deshawn made a perfectly fine post, even though I 'didn't know what was going on', so clearly that point is invalid. At any rate, all I want is a clear, logical argument placed with no veiled insults. I don't care if it comes from Cea, Black, Exo, Deshawn, Dean or whoever. If what they say makes sense, and is portrayed in a respectful manner, I will always respond in kind.

_________________________________________

It's not an insult, it's the truth. I don't care if you're going to be a baby about it. You say crap to us all the time when you're completely missing the point. Unless you want me to lie to you from now on, start reading and understanding the topic at hand.

_________________________________________

Please kindly point out a topic where I attacked you without you throwing the first 'You understand nothing haha' insult first. And by you I mean you or Cea, since I pretty much treat you as one person anyway.

I've asked several times for a peaceful conversation without insults, if you cannot comply, well then I guess that issue is already resolved.

_________________________________________