Is it insulting somebody to mention the thing they were doing deliberately? (Is it verboten to rib people from time to time, too?)

Davion.

Davion!

DAVION! HELLO?

You are saying that I cannot say a bad thing about a troll,
because it might make him troll.

That is crazy insane stupid.

You understand that, right?

If a person is an actual troll, you're supposed to
be dealing with them, not punishing everyone by locking
a thread that people are posting in good faith in.

That holds everybody hostage to one person's careless
assumption that you're not crazy insane stupid enough
to blame them for someone else trolling.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

Well, depends on the circumstances. By the end he was definitely doing it on purpose, but I really don't think it was the initial intent… just kinda gravitated that way when he saw how much it bothered people that his typing sucked. It's the whole eminem mentality. "I am whatever you say I am, If I wasn't then why would you say I am?"

Just for future reference. You will be dealing with the Samson-the-real-moderator-giving-us-official-warnings. Sorry for the confusion guys. Hope this clears stuff up from now on.

If done without fair warning, I think that publicly posting private messages is in poor taste.

For the record, let the MB admins be warned that I intend to publish any "warning" or
fisty-style PM's they send me, using my own judgment as to what's fisty.

I can't abide this "private discussion of public punishment" shit. It's a cowardly
way to avoid discussing what the admins are incapable of defending in the
light of day.

This whole deal has disgusted me quite a lot more than I expected, actually. WTG, MB.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

Crystal clear.


Yes, you're right. My apologies, Davion.

My main gripe in all of this is that the thread I was posting to was locked seemingly because I was trolling Dubstack along with the rest* when actually I was commenting on the harsh ruling that was metered out without good explanation (and ribbing Samson for it at the time).

All I got was "You're not listening, it's not up for debate, there is no more explanation, shut up or else" (paraphrased). I resent this, and I feel admonished for nothing more than a light hearted quip. I reference these posts here. The rest is just fluff.

I also feel my PM's (and Igabods) have fallen on deaf ears. For this I expect at least a nod that this was wrong, and at the most an apology for an overreaction, which I think it most certainly was.

I also feel this entire issue from beginning to end has been dealt with badly. The initial ruling about locking the dubstack thread: no one has a problem (although he was actually benefiting from the publicity). However, the subsequent behaviour of an over-zealous admin (who is also rude with it) and the lack of netiquette is quite abominable.

[edit] * and actually I think that can be debated too, tbh..

I locked Dubstacks thread because he was trolling and using it as a way to gain publicity. Not a type of behavior I want to encourage. Your PM didn't fall on deaf ears… I read it.

how come no one PMs me?

Yes I said, I don't have a problem with that decision. I think it a little odd, and wasn't handled very well, but there you go.



..and what are you going to do?

aww sorry.

I've sent you one now :D

Wasn't planning on doing anything. Pointless threads made by drunk people simply to amuse themselves don't hold a whole lot of weight with me. Had it been some meaningful discussion I likely would have found a way for that conversation to continue. The thread should have been locked as soon as it was made. But it wasn't. Sorry.

Ok, I shall remember this.

I would like you to remember that not everyone on that thread was a) drunk or b) actually discussing Dubstack. I would appreciate it if you could actually request of your admins that they refrain from locking threads without making it crystal clear as to why they are doing it. The two posts following his initial "warning" were not related to Dubstack (well, one and a half). They were related to Samson personally. I think he just got pissed at being made fun of, which is fair enough, but as Crat says "lighten up Francis". Throwing a hissy fit is not acceptable behaviour at the best of times, and wielding your admin stick at the time is even worse.

I will thank you for the "sorry" tho, even if I don't actually think it was made in regards to the abuse of privilege that I was caught up in.

I can only guess that rule 1 is a stab at me. If that is the case, then I have to point out that no site admins chuckled about it; and, the thread in question was ultimately locked. The only reason it lasted as long as it did was because it wavered between serious discussion and trolling. I don't know how much of rule 6 is in reference to rule 1, but I feel compelled to dispel any perceived notion of hypocrisy in regard to that. If anything, the fact that the thread in question was allowed to continue without lock for so long is less indicative of hypocrisy on the part of the administration and more a reluctance not to punish the people who were genuinely interested in the discussion. Perhaps some of the recent heavy-handedness is a result of their goodwill being used up by threads like mine (I'm not taking all the blame!). If so, I apologize.

Still, there needs to be a ceasefire at some point - on both sides. When you reach the point that people are seriously contemplating splintering an already fragmented community over something that started out fairly benign, you know things have escalated too far. I think that the administration should start limiting the usage of thread locks to scenarios where they are really needed (spammers, hatemongers, Locke, etc). Even then, care should be taken not to lock a thread where serious discussion is taking place, merely because a minority of the posters are violating the rules. In those situations, individual posts could be deleted, and repeat offenders should have their accounts temporarily frozen (or deleted in the most severe cases). On the other hand, we, as community members, should start taking verbal warnings from administrators more seriously. If someone, administrator or not, says that a topic is touchy, it's typically in bad taste not to at least take a step back from it.

In summary: Can't we all just get along?

Shall I assume here that you actually meant to say the exact opposite of what you just said? "Reluctance not to punish" means "eagerness to punish."


And this is a perfect example of model behavior:

Explicitly stating why a thread was locked is a good policy. I would suggest doing so in each thread as it is locked so there is no uncertainty. I understand this forum has a list of rules (including a catchall for "If a mod doesn't like it, that is grounds for punishment.") and actually using those rules would be awesome.

No, because you're not thinking of the same thread as Lyanic is.

Aye, remove the word 'not'. Thanks for catching that.


Koron was just pointing out an erroneous negation on my part. It's what happens when I fail to properly proofread my post.

I am a little disappointed that we've had users suspended over this.

This thread is every reason that nothing of any use ever gets done.

I disagree with your assertion. Throughout the time we've seen this disagreement, coding questions have continued to be answered. Admins helping admins–how else would you define anything of use?