Uh, guys? I thought Cheezwizz's post was pretty obviously sarcastic...<_<
He was attacking the site and its administrators for maintaining the positive atmosphere of the site by keeping a user banned who only wants to cause trouble. Wasn't it pretty clear what he meant?
Uh, guys? I thought Cheezwizz's post was pretty obviously sarcastic...<_<
He was attacking the site and its administrators for maintaining the positive atmosphere of the site by keeping a user banned who only wants to cause trouble. Wasn't it pretty clear what he meant?
A temporary ban can go a long way to get the message across, this seems under-utilized.
I am in full gosh darn agreement to this.
Don't we all agree that permanent bans are a bad idea in most cases?
Warnings and temporary bans are the best thing ever, like the yellow card in soccer. And even the red card allows you to play again after a few matches. People change, people realise their mistakes and learn from them.
Of course as I said once every administrator in the world has the right to run his or her own website as he or she wishes, I often think I would be too good hearted to be a cop...
Xkeeper himself was once banned from Sonic Retro, and now he's one of the admins there, likewise Tweaker (another Sonic Retro admin) used to dodge a ban almost a decade ago. Now they're using their second chance to do an excellent job, and Sonic Retro would have missed a lot of useful contributions if their two bans were enforced to be permanent...
Xkeeper himself was once banned from Sonic Retro, and now he's one of the admins there, likewise Tweaker (another Sonic Retro admin) used to dodge a ban almost a decade ago. Now they're using their second chance to do an excellent job, and Sonic Retro would have missed a lot of useful contributions if their two bans were enforced to be permanent...
I agree that Xkeeper was/is a useful member. Old-timers might remember he was an OP in IRC (but then again, so was Xebra ;) ), if that counts for anything.
He of course didn't agree with some of the philosophies that drove this site, and he use the method of "pounding a square peg in a round hole" to reinforce his point. I don't think he really means to attack any members personally; only if the point he wants to get across is related to why he thinks the site is run incorrectly. And he consistently voted No, right? I'd say that's a valid use of the voting system. Abusive, yes? But it's really his opinion.
It wasn't like the laughing_gas ban, where that was construed as a personal attack by voting no on all of JXQ's submissions. Wait, did laughing_gas even get banned for that?
For fucks sake... you should have put a poll on this topic: "Should Xkeeper have been banned? I'd vote "meh".
I am not saying that he shouldn't have gotten banned, but rather that it's sad that a useful member of our community is now behind more red tape.
For fucks sake... you should have put a poll on this topic: "Should Xkeeper have been banned? I'd vote "meh".
I don't know if public humiliation would have been any better.
(Anyways, this isn't a democracy, and probably for a good reason, as long as the admins don't abuse their position.)
(Anyways, this isn't a democracy, and probably for a good reason, as long as the admins don't abuse their position.)
Now if this was tongue-in-cheek, forgive me, but...
Blanket statements like this really don't add anything to the discussion. What's the point of saying the obvious, rather than encouraging discussion. That is the point of this topic, right? Oh, but I guess there's no point in discussing it, since the GODLY admins have spoken. I'm sorry, but you just wasted the shortest post you ever made, warp.
As an aside from the main discussion of why everyone sucks, perhaps an ignore feature would help those of us who can't help but read unpleasant things?
Joined: 11/4/2007
Posts: 1772
Location: Australia, Victoria
Inzult wrote:
As an aside from the main discussion of why everyone sucks, perhaps an ignore feature would help those of us who can't help but read unpleasant things?
You're a pretty weak person if you need someone's posts to actually be hidden in order for you to ignore them.
Edit: Never mind that other thing I said, wrong topic. >_>
Uh, guys? I thought Cheezwizz's post was pretty obviously sarcastic...<_<
He was attacking the site and its administrators for maintaining the positive atmosphere of the site by keeping a user banned who only wants to cause trouble. Wasn't it pretty clear what he meant?
Yeah, the opposite.
Yeah sorry, I think I poured it on too thick. I don't 100% agree with the ban but I can't say it doesn't help either. As for where I've been, I actually don't use the internet much, despite the rumors.
I will say that "making an example of people" tends to be kind of stupid and result in flamewars, so USUALLY if you want to bring up something you're better having a semi private chat with the people who'd best serve each side of the argument.
I feel like the community got hurt more by his permaban than it helped. Banning him for a week or so, then for a month, only then giving him a permaban (unless he apologizes sincerely or whatever?) would have made more sense to me. But what's done is done, I guess.
I was surprised at the posts that got Xkeeper banned. They are relatively mild, and while frequently hyper-critical and unnecessarily rude, still cogent discussions of the topic. On many occasions they added something useful to the thread. Most notably, his mention of a bug in the LUA script was a hugely beneficial post. It was an example of why he should have been kept, not banned!
I realized I'm just a random member as opposed to a part of the staff or even a player, and thus my view means less (as it should, by the way), but being a part of the forum, I think it sets both a bad precedent and takes something away from the board's quality.
After all, as adelikat admitted, Xkeeper was a former player and a talented coder who wrote useful posts. He contributed something positive to the message board. As for what he did that was negative, he basically hurt a few peoples' feelings with "meanly" worded posts.
Hell, he didn't even call anyone an "idiot" (which many other non-banned members have done at one time or another...including this very topic!) or any other direct insult; he just wrote his views in an uncivil manner.
So again, as a random member, I disagree with the ban, think it sets a bad precedent for the board, and makes us a little less enlightened.
I think it sets both a bad precedent and takes something away from the board's quality.
The problem I see with that is that you are, basically, suggesting that the forum should tolerate regular use of rude language from a person if that person contributes positively in other ways. A bit like the two things would cancel each other out and thus the overall result is ok.
I don't think it works (nor should work) like that. The regular use of rude language doesn't go away by any positive contributions the person might be doing. It's still there, and a lot of people are going to read it. It doesn't have to be tolerated.
I think it sets both a bad precedent and takes something away from the board's quality.
The problem I see with that is that you are, basically, suggesting that the forum should tolerate regular use of rude language from a person if that person contributes positively in other ways.
Yes, that is exactly the way I see it.
What you choose to "tolerate" is entirely up to you. Personally, I have a problem with really stupid posts that add nothing to a particular topic.
Now, there are a lot of those on any message board, even in a more intelligent forum like this one. Does this mean the users who make the worthless posts should be perma-banned too, since I can barely "tolerate" it?
I was a moderator for a large site, and for me, the answer was an easy "no".
Meanwhile, I never had a problem with people using coarse language, and that included a disgruntled member or two calling me a "fucking idiot". (And keep in mind too that Xkeeper never wrote anything even half as extreme, or directly insulted ANYONE)
So again, what you choose to be offended by, or have to "tolerate" is completely up to you.
For you, someone using impolite language is a big deal. For me, it's not.
For you, it's not a big deal that a valuable contributor is no longer posting here. For me, it is.
Clearly, we have different standards.
Warp wrote:
A bit like the two things would cancel each other out and thus the overall result is ok.
Let's not trivialize here.
As mentioned above, we clearly just assign different values to such things. For me, someone using mildly rude language is essentially a neutral interaction; I don't care. For you, it's a strongly negative one.
Meanwhile, for me, reading intelligent posts is a hugely positive experience. For you, I'm sure it's also quite positive, but probably not enough to make up for how negative the mildly rude language is.
Warp wrote:
It's still there, and a lot of people are going to read it. It doesn't have to be tolerated.
You're certainly entitled to your view, but let's not pretend that either you or I speak for "a lot of people".
Anyways, I realize that adelikat's decision won't be swayed by a completely random member, but I wanted to point out that not everyone has a problem with the posts in question, and it's a poor trade-off and precedent when quality contributors are banned for being impolite.
The problem I see with that is that you are, basically, suggesting that the forum should tolerate regular use of rude language from a person if that person contributes positively in other ways.
Yes, that is exactly the way I see it.
Then we'll just have to disagree. Rude language is rude language, and whether it's acceptable or not has nothing to do with what else that person might have done.
For you, it's not a big deal that a valuable contributor is no longer posting here. For me, it is.
Clearly, we have different standards.
I 200% agree with IronSlayer here. Good contributors should be encouraged no matter what, instead of being kicked away because of few questionable issues. To be entirely honest I was very surprised when mmarks was banned, because he provided lots of good encodes. Sure he did something wrong, but permabanning such a helpful guy, without even a warning, just seems even wronger to me.
Even the "we don't accept TASes from banned members" seems to be a violations of the "judge the TAS, not the TASer" rule, but as IronSlayer said, clearly we have different standards.
Joined: 11/4/2007
Posts: 1772
Location: Australia, Victoria
IronSlayer wrote:
Anyways, I realize that adelikat's decision won't be swayed by a completely random member, but I wanted to point out that not everyone has a problem with the posts in question, and it's a poor trade-off and precedent when quality contributors are banned for being impolite.
I personally believe it's impossible for anyone to sway the management's views. If it was possible, it'd have happened already. The management here are utterly resilient and will not budge from their agenda.
Just what their ultimate agenda is though? I don't have a damn clue, but I fear to know what it is.
I have weird opinions, don't I?
Joined: 7/30/2011
Posts: 129
Location: Watching a TAS in the basement...
Flygon wrote:
IronSlayer wrote:
Anyways, I realize that adelikat's decision won't be swayed by a completely random member, but I wanted to point out that not everyone has a problem with the posts in question, and it's a poor trade-off and precedent when quality contributors are banned for being impolite.
I personally believe it's impossible for anyone to sway the management's views. If it was possible, it'd have happened already. The management here are utterly resilient and will not budge from their agenda.
Just what their ultimate agenda is though? I don't have a damn clue, but I fear to know what it is.
I have weird opinions, don't I?
I 200% agree with IronSlayer here. Good contributors should be encouraged no matter what, instead of being kicked away because of few questionable issues.
I still find this stance baffling. I don't know if it's just me, but I just can't see how positive contributions somehow "cancel out" constant rude behavior.
If someone is reading this forum and sees cursing and inappropriate text, he is not going to think "oh, but he has contributed so much to the site, so I'll not get upset in his case; if it were somebody else, someone who hasn't contributed, then I would get upset". That would be irrational. Nobody thinks like that. Inappropriate text is inappropriate regardless of who writes it. It doesn't somehow become tolerable if the person happens to be a contributor.
Think about it from the point of view of the official forum rules. Should there be a clause that states something along the lines of: "Rude behavior will not be tolerated. Except if you contribute to the website; in that case it's ok, go ahead. Be as rude as you like."
Sure he did something wrong, but permabanning such a helpful guy, without even a warning, just seems even wronger to me.
I think most people here agree that warnings should be issued before bans. But that's not the point I'm making here.
This thread is played out. The only person who can change this now is XKeeper, and given his comments in IRC, I don't forsee this changing. Every point has been rehashed repeatedly.
Locking.
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
