4) The following are not tolerated on public channels: * unwarranted hostility
All of these will be judged by our subjective opinion of what constitutes a violation.
05 Jun, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
It's so very reassuring to see incompetence and irrationality back with us again. I was starting to feel uncomfortable with the semblance of mature behavior.
Plus ca change…
EDIT: As a side note, it's utterly preposterous to see you acting in this capacity after the spectacle you gave when asked to stop swearing on ichat.
05 Jun, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
Your swear filter thinks that "reassuring" is swearing… nice.
Actually, Cratylus has a valid question. HE wasn't banned, the entire population of the Dead Souls MUD was banned. So, how do the uninvolved parties who are only guilty by association get themselves unbanned?
Actually, Cratylus has a valid question. HE wasn't banned, the entire population of the Dead Souls MUD was banned. So, how do the uninvolved parties who are only guilty by association get themselves unbanned?
Isn't this just the inherent nature of how banning works on IMC?
Actually, Cratylus has a valid question. HE wasn't banned, the entire population of the Dead Souls MUD was banned. So, how do the uninvolved parties who are only guilty by association get themselves unbanned?
Isn't this just the inherent nature of how banning works on IMC?
Yes, which is why it's not a good solution for an individual user on a single mud with multiple people using the network regularly.
Yes, which is why it's not a good solution for an individual user on a single mud with multiple people using the network regularly.
The way I handle this sort of thing on i3 is to try to come to some understanding with the person before the ban, through general guidance, then warnings, then stern warnings, finally if nothing else works, as limited a ban as possible, preferably just from the resource being abused, or automatically temporary (auto-unban after a week is the standard).
Then I try to reason with the person some more. The idea is to be as inclusive as possible, and as tolerant as possible.
The important difference here, though, is that the i3 rules are not enforced arbitrarily to suit my ego, but rather enforced consistently (even against people I'd rather not enhitler) based on as fair an approach to the philosophy of the resource as possible.
When it's done that way, I've found it dramatically minimizes the collateral damage, even when a mud-wide ban is the option used.
The important difference here, though, is that the i3 rules are not enforced arbitrarily to suit my ego, but rather enforced consistently (even against people I'd rather not enhitler) based on as fair an approach to the philosophy of the resource as possible.
I tried this. It made people turn into giant bleeding vaginas because I wouldn't let them swear on ichat anymore.