Episode III spoilers forum: Acceptable behavior?

Take the personal stuff somewhere else, please (that goes for both of you).

 

Take the personal stuff somewhere else, please (that goes for both of you).

Please highlight which of my comments you are objecting to so I know what not to repeat.

 

"Besides, the Mods saw your comment for what it was."

The Mod made an error in judgment.

So when a moderator wants to lock a thread for preceiving it as something and you happen to agree with them, that's cool and we should shut up and stop whining. But when the tide turn against you, suddenly it's not OK anymore? Relax, I'm not trying to pick at you, I'm just trying to get you to understand why this thread was started to begin with. A thread was locked on preceived intention, you were banned on preceived intentions. We are not so different, D_Z, and I know this because after your banning, you've said a lot of things I've agreed with - not everything, admittedly, but a lot more than we were before. We both want the ablity to say our peace.

 

Besides, the Mods saw your comment for what it was.

The Mod made an error in judgment.

Do you have any idea how little sense that makes? Aside from the obvious question "who are you to make that conclusion?", of course. Is it that you cannot see your own comments as being rude, or what? If the Moderators perceive it as rude, then you're doing something wrong, whether you intended it to be rude or not.

No, I was banned for "rudeness", something not defined in the TOS.

Not entirely true, based on the private-message discussion I had with multiple Mods and Admins (which you are obviously not privy to). They agreed that you were out of line, and that the ban was justified.

And, amazingly, the very person who called the mods on me has been rude in this forum and 3SA.

I called the Mods on you, Darth_Zidious, in case you didn't realize it. I PMed all the Mods of both the Comms forum and the 3SA forum, because I didn't find your attitude in this thread to be constructive.

I propose an alternative: If you can't handle criticism of something you say, don't say it.

Or, optionally, you could word criticism in a manner that's CONSTRUCTIVE, instead of attacking the person who originated the idea. It's called "being civil".

I just want to be able to accurately criticize the idea

Could you clarify the phrase "accurately criticize"?

- I did none of those.

As a matter of fact, your post could have been seen as trolling. I spelled out how I felt it was trolling in one of my earlier posts (even going as far as to give a counter-example showing why it's trolling), and then I pointed this out to Raven, and he agreed. You got banned.

The problem is that some people get special treatment, and can behave any way they wish.

Then don't be rude, and you've got nothing to worry about, right? Then you can take the high ground (kinda like I'm doing) and have nothing that can be used against you. The difference between you and me? I'm not being rude. You're rude, you get punished, and then you point fingers and say "...but HE was doing it TOO!!" and start whining.
Maybe you should just start taking responsibility for your own actions.

The same parts of the TOS that you quoted would allow the mods to perm-ban me for being nice and helpful. It would also allow them to play favorites and simply ban people they don't like.

Welcome to a privately-owned, independently-operated messageboard, where the Mods and Admins make the rules and enforce them, not the users.
Got a problem with a setup like this? You've got a few options:
1. Suck it up and deal with it.
2. Leave.
3. Voice a complaint (which you've chosen to do), but be ready to do either option #1 or #2 if nothing changes.

Which is why I said the mod made an error in judgment.

No, you just THINK he made an error in judgment.

 

Or, optionally, you could word criticism in a manner that's CONSTRUCTIVE, instead of attacking the person who originated the idea. It's called "being civil".

Exactly what I've been trying to say all along, not only about the situation on this thread, but about 3SA in general.

There is no need to be mean and nasty, whether you think it's against the TOS or not.

 

Hell, when I was PMing Moderators and Admins, I was trying to introduce it as a problem for the forums as a whole, not just 3SA.

If someone thinks it's their RIGHT to be rude to people simply because it's "not against the TOS", then there's something wrong.

 

...we should shut up and stop whining.

I never said that. I said that people were only whining without proposing solutions.

A thread was locked on preceived intention, you were banned on preceived intentions.

Exactly. In the second case it was an error.

------------------------

Is it that you cannot see your own comments as being rude, or what?

I didn't violate the TOS.

They agreed that you were out of line...

"They" made an error in judgment.

...instead of attacking the person who originated the idea.

No problems there. But some don't want us to be allowed to criticize ideas.

Could you clarify the phrase "accurately criticize"?

We should be allowed to criticize ideas, whether they be "wrong", "horrible", "pathetic" or "asinine". I shouldn't have to consult a list of allowable words when expressing my opinion about ideas. This is one of the great strengths of 3SA.

As a matter of fact, your post could have been seen as trolling.I spelled out how I felt it was trolling in one of my earlier posts (even going as far as to give a counter-example showing why it's trolling), and then I pointed this out to Raven, and he agreed.

You both made an error in judgment. You misinterpreted. My post after yours explained it. You ignored the explanation.

You're rude, you get punished, and then you point fingers and say "...but HE was doing it TOO!!"

You've missed the point. No one in this thread should have been banned. The irony I've pointed out is that those who are pushing this "rudeness" business are very "rude" themselves.

...you just THINK he made an error in judgment.

I know what I was doing. You guessed, and guessed wrong.

If someone thinks it's their RIGHT to be rude to people simply because it's "not against the TOS", then there's something wrong.

It's not a question of rights. Bans should not occur when the TOS isn't violated.

==========================

Question for Syntax:

In the comms thread "Moderator Impeachments", user Liz Skywalker responded with "I think the idea is idiotic, frankly." Should that user be banned for "rudeness"?

 

You obviously do not understand.

I shouldn't have to consult a list of allowable words when expressing my opinion about ideas.

You SHOULD, however, have the common sense and common decency to think before you post and not use words that you KNOW could be taken offense to.
Is that really a concept you've got a problem with? I'd really like to know.
What is so difficult about phrasing a post in a manner that's not offensive, even if you're just "criticising ideas"?

You both made an error in judgment. You misinterpreted. My post after yours explained it. You ignored the explanation.

You want to talk about ignoring posts? What about my lengthy post that was 2-3 posts BELOW the one in question in which I called you into question for trolling? You ignored that one. So then I PMed some Mods, and you got banned. (all those who doubt this sequence of events, go back and check out Zidious' post where I called him out for trolling, on page 21 of this thread. I think it's even my first post in this thread. Then look at his responses after it, and then at my next reply where I say I'm PMing Moderators)
Then, and only then, did you come out and fabricate an "explanation" for your behavior (which is different from a "justification", mind you. You explaining WHY you did something does not JUSTIFY your doing it and make it okay. Hence your ban, even if your "explanation" is true) . As far as I'm concerned, you pulled the explanation out of thin air, AFTER THE FACT. As far as I'm concerned, you were trolling when you made the original post and now you're just making up an explanation for it because you got busted, when it wasn't your original intent to begin with. And frankly the Mods seemed to agree with me, which is why you got banned. You might notice that the Mods didn't revoke your ban after they issued it, nor did they apologize to you for "wrongly banning you" after you "explained yourself".
I said it once, and I'll say it again: Perhaps you're just not taking responsibility for your own actions...?

No one in this thread should have been banned.

...in your opinion. I guess it's a good thing you're not the one who issues the bans, eh?

I know what I was doing. You guessed, and guessed wrong.

Even if your "explanation" is true, there WERE better ways to make your point which wouldn't have been interpreted as trolling, and wouldn't have gotten you banned.
That is the whole point of this discussion. You (and other people) apparently have problems discerning ways to state opinions without pissing people off.

It's not a question of rights. Bans should not occur when the TOS isn't violated.

...so you're saying that you think you can be rude simply because the TOS doesn't say it's against the rules? Isn't that a little strange?
Why do you think you can be rude, simply because it's not in violation of the TOS? Don't you have any grasp of human decency, or how to properly interact with other people? ?

The Point: There is no need for you to be rude to others, TOS violations or not.

Do you understand yet?

In the comms thread "Moderator Impeachments", user Liz Skywalker responded with "I think the idea is idiotic, frankly." Should that user be banned for "rudeness"?

No, because Liz Skywalker clarified what she meant. That wasn't the ONLY thing she said. She made a constructive post which added to the discussion which showed WHY she thought it was a bad idea. She used an analogy (to the US government) to show why she felt it was a bad idea, and called the idea itself into question. The word choice was "strong" because of how strongly she felt (just like calling something "a horrible idea", an example you used in an earlier post).
It's called "context". I went and looked it up in the thread in question (which I've posted in, too, by the way) because I figured you were trying to get me to take the quote OUT of context.
It'd hardly be a bannable offense, and it's not like it's something Liz Skywalker does often, either. You, on the other hand

 

[image=http://www.goenglish.com/GoEnglish_com_BeatADeadHorse.gif]

Sorry, but Darth_Zidious, but the mods feel you DID violate the TOS and to be honest, repetedly bringing this up seems to be on the verge of trolling at worse, and at the least baiting by caling out posters who happen to disagree with you.

 

Just dropped in, and saw this...

"A thread was locked on preceived intention, you were banned on preceived intentions."

"Exactly. In the second case it was an error."

Of course it was. It's quite clear you have only the best intentions in this thread...

"...you just THINK he made an error in judgment."

"I know what I was doing. You guessed, and guessed wrong."

Of course, you would never have considered this possibility with B-S, right?

"but the mods feel you DID violate the TOS"

...and we don't want to question their actions, for fear of 1) potentially saying the Mods aren't doing their jobs, and 2) calling into question the action taken against B-S, where you felt a mistake was not made.

[EDIT]

How's this, Darth_Breezy? [image=http://introwebnet.com/forums/images/smiles/deadhorse.gif]

 

Breezy, I'd appreciate if we can move past that.

 

[Redundant, in light of KW's post]

Edit - actually... just a thought. if any Mods/Admins want to comment on anything I've said (agreements, disagreements, other ideas, etc), feel free to chime in.

 

MeBeJedi, I think this whole thread can be summed up in your gif!

 

"A thread was locked on preceived intention, you were banned on preceived intentions."

Exactly. In the second case it was an error.

In conclusion, you're always right and everyone else wrong. Sorry, the world doesn't work that way. You want the line drawn in your favor - acting on perceived intention good when you agree, bad when you disagree. People say what you like only, cannot say what you don't like. Even the moderators don't stand by you on this one. This approach solves nothing and causes you unnecessary irritation. On this, you are alone, but if you're cool with that, that's cool with me.


Or, optionally, you could word criticism in a manner that's CONSTRUCTIVE, instead of attacking the person who originated the idea. It's called "being civil".

Exactly what I've been trying to say all along, not only about the situation on this thread, but about 3SA in general.

There is no need to be mean and nasty, whether you think it's against the TOS or not.

Well put, Anakin_girl.

 

Zidious...
"This allows the administration to ban for any reason whatsoever. I'm not arguing against that. This kind of vague legalistic catch-all gives them protection, which is why it is there."

Correct, except that there's nothing vague about it. It is rather clearly defined.

"But it is ridiculous for Ghengis12 to chime in afterwards and point out that I "should have been aware" when these same phrases could be used to justify a ban for being nice."

What else they can be justified for is irrelevent to the fact that they directly and specifically cover the items that you brought up. Which is why I chimed in afterwards pointing you to them, as you did not seem to be aware of their existence.

If you were, then you would not have posted the things you posted as you would have already known the answers to your questions and why you were incorrect in some of the things that you posted.

 

I continue to watch this thread without getting involved as it's not really my fight.
One thing I do want to point out is that if the Mods were so trigger happy to ban everyone, this thread has put that theory to the test and to date the debate continues with little interference from the Administration except in one instance that all parties seem to agree was a little extreme.

Zid,
What do you want to see come out of all this? What would you call a win from this debate, just curious. I am not on either side but I don't really get what your fighting for so hard, but it's obvious your passionate about it.

 

interference from the Administration

Well, I'd like to comment that I see a difference between "interference" and "involvement" (i.e., the difference between Mods/Admins banning people left and right, and Mods/Admins discussing ideas with users). I still wish the Mod/Admin INVOLVEMENT level was higher than it is right now. Granted, we've got a handful of Mods and Admins posting fairly frequently at this point, but I'd expect more.
Just my $0.02

 

I say we explore the "Mods/Admins banning people left and right" part some more because that just sounds like a good idea to me.

 

And we're here. I've read everything. It isn't always necessary, however, to go post-for-post.

 

You're here, Genghis is here.. and there aren't that many others. You and Genghis have been here very frequently, I agree. I just think that input on some of the more recent topics from any Mods (not just from Comms or from 3SA) could be useful, to get other viewpoints on some of the more recent ideas and issues that people have brought up.

 

I would personally like to see the topic get back to acceptable behavior in the 3SA forum rather than whether or not Zidious' ban was justified.

 

I catch up on this thread when I can; just because you don't see me here, doesn't mean I'm not reading. I post from work and have limited time to do so, and must spend what time I have reading the 3SA and doing that end of my job.

 

I would personally like to see the topic get back to acceptable behavior in the 3SA forum

I think that cow's been sacrificed a million times over...the 3SA forum will continue as it has been. There's no hope for it, no hopes of a quick resolution via nuclear annihilation...nope, it's just going to be like the Republic, rotting away slowly.

 

Actually, thisw thread has rarely been on 3SA, even less so this specific case. Its more about the purist/EUist situation and, to a lesser degree, what constitutes an iflammatory remark

 

Isn't the purist/EU situation in another thread you and I are both posting in, Sam?

I could be wrong--I'm zonked and have been taking care of a very sick husband all week.