GameBanshee Forums

dj_venom wrote:<snip>
However, it seems a lot of this arguing, it's degenerating, it's nitpicking, and frankly, not really going anywhere.

It's why I posted that other post. Perhaps this is just about removing 'mastodont' (o, not a), or it's against spam. We don't know. I don't know.

Yes it is degenerating, in no small part because of statements such as this: "Masa, I don't think it's really worth it. Afterall, these people who never spam know far more than us, who do."

You seem to draw the conclusion that people speaking out against "you" and "your" stance, doesn't know "spam" or don't "spam". Simply because people didn't post in the "mastadont" thread do not mean they neither "spammed" or haven't done so in the past. And quite frankly it is such generalization and statements which lend to the fact that few are willing to discuss what actual went on. It isn't directly marked towards you - but it is an "argument" I've seen used multiple times from various sources.

dj_venom wrote:<snip>
@Xan: I wasn't implying you were obligated to reply in this thread. I have been asking though, for further reasoning behind this, which is why mods were needed, since they saw the discussion.<snip>

I and most other saw the dicussion yes. However seeing it, and not wanting to participate in it due to being hunted for your opinion and needing to defend yourself is two very different things.
Had this thread stayed rational and logical, and had events revolving this issue been kept that way - you'd have had much more response from moderators, and perhaps even Buck. I for one would not have minded to explain my stance on this issue.

But because this whole issue turned to a witch hunt with peoples personal grugdes and half-truths and even blatant lies beeing spread, it simply held no sensible reason to start trying to post constructive to reply. It would drown and even been swept away by the ones shouting largest.

Fact of the matter is - that irregardless of how the proposal first came to be - that this was voted on and voted in as beneficial to the moderators of SYM - not because of any other conspiracy theory. But this will be largely ignored I'm sure, because it doesn't fit into the setting of the people who'd rather belive it is a "crusade against "spam" in SYM" or what other arguments which could be fronted. Jumping to conclusions is always a bad thing to do, both in cyberspace as in the real world, yet it is the easy way out.
Remember also, that people on the other side of the fence might not disclose all the details they know for various reasons either.

Xandax wrote:But because this whole issue turned to a witch hunt with peoples personal grugdes and half-truths and even blatant lies beeing spread, it simply held no sensible reason to start trying to post constructive to reply. It would drown and even been swept away by the ones shouting largest.

Show me proof. You may not know the laws of defamation, but I have recently been revisting torts law. Now, in defamation, one type of defamation is something that will ruin a person's reputation. There are 6 major statements to ruin someone's reputation, one of which is calling them a liar. So please, Xandax, show me where I, or others, have done lies. And not just lies, but blantant lies. Afterall, the one defence available to you is that it's true, so let's hope it is.

Xandax wrote:You seem to draw the conclusion that people speaking out against "you" and "your" stance, doesn't know "spam" or don't "spam". Simply because people didn't post in the "mastadont" thread do not mean they neither "spammed" or haven't done so in the past. And quite frankly it is such generalization and statements which lend to the fact that few are willing to discuss what actual went on.

Times change. I know you've spammed in the past, but you haven't done so recently in the mastodont threads.

I'd like to respond to some of your other points, but I'd probably be 'emotional' when I did it. I can't stand for being accused of being a liar.

Note: You don't mention who you refer to, however since it is addressed at me, logically I can assume it is me. If it is not, please clarify who is, and once again, provide proof.

Buck Satan wrote:I would appreciate it if everyone could have the common courtesy to at least show some respect while doing so.

Well, you didn't show any of that to Lestat. Not a single warning...or any kind of justification shown to him regarding his banning whatsoever. In fact if he tries to even access it says he's banned and the the reason for the banning? Well, it says 'NONE'.

Ravager wrote:Well, you didn't show any of that to Lestat. Not a single warning...or any kind of justification shown to him regarding his banning whatsoever. In fact if he tries to even access it says he's banned and the the reason for the banning? Well, it says 'NONE'.

Now that is a blatant lie:

Buck Satan wrote:Since his post no longer exists, I will explain. Lestat was banned because he intentionally copied and pasted direct information from the Moderator Discussion forum with the specific intention to incite rioting and to point a finger at a particular moderator. The fact that he was even able to obtain the information is downright sad.<snip>

Ravager wrote:Well, you didn't show any of that to Lestat. Not a single warning...or any kind of justification shown to him regarding his banning whatsoever. In fact if he tries to even access it says he's banned and the the reason for the banning? Well, it says 'NONE'.

Lestat got banned??? Now I really do not understand a *thing* of what's going on.

EDIT: Ok, I saw the post above. But I am still confused to no end.

Xandax wrote:Now that is a blatant lie:

Uhhh...I quoted that exact post Xan.
I said, if you want to look at my post again....that neither Buck nor any of the mods told Lestat. Either pre or post banning. And that as far as I know is still the case.
I'm sure you're as aware as I am that a banned person cannot access either PMs or the GB Forum.

Ravager wrote:<snip>
I'm sure you're as aware as I am that a banned person cannot access either PMs or the GB Forum.

I'm sure you are aware that as a guest you can read threads.
And Buck explains his reasons in the post.

Xandax wrote:I'm sure you are aware that as a guest you can read threads.
And Buck explains his reasons in the post.

Nope. He can't even do that. He was IP banned by the looks of it...so, neither can he see the vast majority of GB (inc. game content) nor can he defend himself.
Unless, of course you would prefer to call me and Lestat liars.

Ravager wrote:Nope. He can't even do that. He was IP banned by the looks of it...so, neither can he see the vast majority of GB (inc. game content) nor can he defend himself.
Unless, of course you would prefer to call me and Lestat liars.

Didn't know the nature of the banning. Sorry about that.
But then you can pass the message on to him.
It is publicly availble unlike the information he has otherwise gotten ahold of and wanted to post attempting to "hunt" a moderator resulting in his banning.
It shouldn't be rocket science that if you use material optained as such in that manner that you'd loose posting rights.

Xan, he didn't receive a single warning about being banned for it, he reposted something that mysteriously vanished a couple of times, that's all. Didn't he deserve some kind of comment, some kind of warning to stop what he was doing that was wrong BEFORE he was banned? GB never used to operate on a ban first, ask questions later strategy (not with regular posters who haven't broken any rules before, at least).
And yes, I can pass along a message to him, but that's hardly the same as an explanation directly to him...and since he was here for quite a while and I'd daresay was a respected member of the GB community, he should deserve that at least.

Ravager wrote:Xan, he didn't receive a single warning about being banned for it, he reposted something that mysteriously vanished a couple of times, that's all. Didn't he deserve some kind of comment, some kind of warning to stop what he was doing that was wrong BEFORE he was banned? GB never used to operate on a ban first, ask questions later strategy (not with regular posters who haven't broken any rules before, at least).
And yes, I can pass along a message to him, but that's hardly the same as an explanation directly to him...and since he was here for quite a while and I'd daresay was a respected member of the GB community, he should deserve that at least.

I can not speak for Lestat, but posting something as he did and found it "missing", it would not be strange to think it was deleted.

And we've never had members posting material leaked to them from a confidential forum, in an attempt to target moderators and fuel a witch hunt.
So trying to use "past precendence" on such issues is kind of mute as there is no past precendence for this.
But considering the manner of posting of such material, I do not think it at all strange that Buck banned him outright.

As I said - it isn't rocket science to think that by posting material optained in such a manner, in such a way would cause loss of posting priviliges.

While I respect that everybody has their own opinion on things, three times now I've lost respect from people because of this decision on the SYM policy. I won't point my finger, but I will say this-

While you have your own opinion on whether the policy is good or bad, that's fine, I can respect that, but PLEASE do not ignore blatant facts and create lies such as "All moderators decide for the entire forum."

I won't say too much about the discussion (even if it doesn't matter as it's been totally leaked out now), but I will say that not all the moderators had a say in what was discussed, some still haven't even said anything, such as myself.

I've already talked to buck about this, and I really don't want to quit being a moderator just because I'm now stereotyped as the bad guy. I don't want that at all, so please, use your common sense and don't blame a decision talked about and made by a few mods, on the entire staff of Gamebanshee.


Thank you.

I didn't mean to say or infer that all moderators are equally involved in such a decision, Sib. I know from the facts that you weren't...although I can't say what has happened behind closed doors since my demotion, of course.

Xandax wrote:I can not speak for Lestat, but posting something as he did and found it "missing", it would not be strange to think it was deleted.

And we've never had members posting material leaked to them from a confidential forum, in an attempt to target moderators and fuel a witch hunt.
So trying to use "past precendence" on such issues is kind of mute as there is no past precendence for this.
But considering the manner of posting of such material, I do not think it at all strange that Buck banned him outright.

As I said - it isn't rocket science to think that by posting material optained in such a manner, in such a way would cause loss of posting priviliges.

Just because there isn't a past precedence, doesn't mean general courtesy should be extended to members in the form of the usual warnings. That's how you tell a member they're doing something wrong, not simply by deleting a post they've reposted, but by telling them not to do that...and if they do it again and it contains material of that nature THEN you ban him/her. Otherwise, no-one knows where they stand.
Why, I could post something virtually innoucuos, be banned for it and wouldn't have a clue why that happened.
It's not as if he's some advertising bot or the like. He's a real person, just like you and me.

>>>I didn't mean to say or infer that all moderators are equally involved in such a decision, Sib. I know from the facts that you weren't...although I can't say what has happened behind closed doors since my demotion, of course.

I know you haven't said anything like that, but I do know people who have is all. I'm just requesting this in advance for people to consider rather than immediately type it in and post it. It's not true that all moderators were involved, and it's not opinion either.

Ravager wrote:Just because there isn't a past precedence, doesn't mean general courtesy should be extended to members in the form of the usual warnings. That's how you tell a member they're doing something wrong, not simply by deleting a post they've reposted, but by telling them not to do that...and if they do it again and it contains material of that nature THEN you ban him/her. Otherwise, no-one knows where they stand.
Why, I could post something virtually innoucuos, be banned for it and wouldn't have a clue why that happened.
It's not as if he's some advertising bot or the like. He's a real person, just like you and me.

A "real" person would have thought about what he posted and how it would affect others.

Disregarding how he got ahold of material discussed in percived confidentiality from the moderator forum, then the resposting of something like that with intent of pointing fingers is not something which is equatable with advertising or somebody accidently breaking the forum rules. Not even close.
No, sorry - that is a no go.

And if suddenly so aware of "real peoples" feeling, then consider all the moderators and Buck who have been targeted by various flamish posts and apparent vendettas - we are real people as well, doing this in our spare time.

And as for the confidential material, then that was posted by real people expecting the confidentiality kept by their peers, people who were betrayed by the leaking.

What, we're quibbling over the nature of real now? :laugh: Tch.

Well, I know spam/advertisement bots quite often get banned without any warning, because they are simply advertising and that is their only function here...thus, yes, they get the ban.
So, is this going to set a precedent? As I recall, the infraction system which is just coming into operation requires a PM to be sent to a member whenever points are given out, however, that was not used in this case. There isn't even a reason provided for the banning when Lestat tries to access GB, it says something like 'Reason for Banning: None'.

Consider your feelings? Then consider our feelings too...I'm still waiting for some kind of explanation to my demotion...and that still hasn't been provided. I didn't break any of the GB Rules, yet I was demoted. How am I supposed to feel about that?

@Sib, fair enough.

Masa wrote:The so called spam threads are just for discussing matters more freely. Saying "hi, how are you" isn't mindless spam, it's the start of a conversation.

it's not just "hi how are you?"->"i'm fine and u?" it goes on and on, atleast when i left.. quality really started to plummet, and many ppl were just farming posts..

this is a forum not a chat room, when ppl use it continuosly as a chat room with 1-3word posts it's nothing but mindless spam.

@Viscun: exactly it's a shame nowadays ain't it?

What does quality matter, Locke? We're not here to provide some saga for people down the line to read, we post as we wish to, within the GB Rules. There's nothing wrong with that. If you don't like that part of SYM, you can just gloss over it.

Ravager wrote:What, we're quibbling over the nature of real now? :laugh: Tch.

Well, I know spam/advertisement bots quite often get banned without any warning, because they are simply advertising and that is their only function here...thus, yes, they get the ban.
So, is this going to set a precedent? As I recall, the infraction system which is just coming into operation requires a PM to be sent to a member whenever points are given out, however, that was not used in this case. There isn't even a reason provided for the banning when Lestat tries to access GB, it says something like 'Reason for Banning: None'.<snip>

All things do not go through the infraction system, and you very well know this. Or rather you would have known this from your time as a modereator.

If this incident will be a precendent? I don't know - I would think, or rather hope, it is a once in a life time occurance when somebody tries to use leaked confidential material for targeting moderators and fueling what appears to be a witch hunt.
But if not it is a single time event, then it might very well be precendence. That is up to Buck to decide.

And no, we are not debating the nature of "real". I simply found it fun to try and use that as your reasoning about how it must have felt for Lestat, when other people are having their condifential words leaked out from the moderator forum, and published as an attempt to target them, and they are real people as well.

Ravager wrote: Consider your feelings? Then consider our feelings too...I'm still waiting for some kind of explanation to my demotion...and that still hasn't been provided. I didn't break any of the GB Rules, yet I was demoted. How am I supposed to feel about that?

As I've said before, the reason is a discussion between you and Buck.

Well, this seems like an incident that could have gone through the infraction system...if you don't agree, why don't you think so?

[quote="Xandax]As I've said before"]
I know, I'm just saying my feelings were hurt too.