Mod Squad Update for 5/21 -> 5/28

Nobody in the Administration has denied it Vert.

You don't call the ISP of every person who curses on the forums do you? Or every person who trolls? Have you called Barry's ISP? Have you called (or caught) the fake linker's ISP(s)?

No. But when one of the JC's precious mods has his feelings hurt in an accident, and by a member of a group that we KNOW a lot of mods don't like, it's time to screw that member over as much as possible (Possible indefinite ban, I don't think Adam has gotten an unban reply yet, and TERMINATING his long standing webhost account).

Had the JC not complained like children, the picture WOULD HAVE BEEN REMOVED, when DD was INFORMED IT WAS ON THE JC, and nothing would have happened past that.

 

And given this image was in a moderator's profile, there was also reason to think the account was hacked. Banning had to happen to get the password to edit the link.

As far as cb linking without permission, he did get talked to about that and said from now on he would. That is certainly not bannable since we brought it up in this update and have been very lax enforcing it until something huge happens. cb's discipline was appropriate.

 

Sape, Sape, Sape. You're not reading. I said issue zero-tolerance warnings to cbjedi and Darth_d for being involved in this incident, and then make a fair and broad JC policy later, and let us all know.

 

Question: if this user wanted to stop bandwidth leeching (this can?t be proved or disproved), why didn?t he delete the picture off his server (making the link dead), instead of replacing it with something inappropriate?

Yes, this is an honest question.

 

Hindsight is 20/20.

And some people might leave a dead image, not noticing, or being lazy, but people will remove Goatse.

 

So you're in favor of letting everyone get away with things the first time provided they're something new and creative?

So if someone found a way of filling the forums with Porn without actually posting anything, you'd just warn them because there was no specific policy?

"No one's denying it so it must be true!"

Nice logic. Where's farraday to point that out?

Vertical

 

Xie: I understand and respect your feeling and emotion. But can you agree the way you have that worded may be perceived as inciteful to those you addressed? Please rethink your wording in the future. Your opinion is fine and valid. The wording is not as responsible as could be and I think you know that. Thanks. And there was no collusion or conspiracy here. We always try to do what we think is best. People may not agree, but we try to be fair at all times.

And sorry, but cb needed to be banned because it was his profile that had the image. That was obvious to me. D_D was untouched for over 24 hours. So you see we did handle it by banning cb, discussing, and then proceeding. This time we felt the disciplinary action should be placed on D_D. Had we agreed it be place on cb, I would have done that too. You may not believe that, but it would.

 

because if he put the image on his page obviously he wants or needs it for something, sayign he should delete it is in effect saying the person linking it has no responsibility.

And Vert as a general guideline only means that it's too widespread for them to actually patrol it effectively. If a specific case comes up they will moderate.

You know that. Just like limiting yourself to three socks is "a general guideline".

Edit// Vert please do not make this personal I respect you too much to reply in kind. Frankly letting someone get away with it is of no consequence compared to the knowledge that it is posisble. If it isn't covered by the rules, go ahead and make a new one to cover it. However to retroactively or without warning decide to make or change a rule isn't fair.

If the TOS permits it then once again the TOS is faulty.

 

There is no unban reply yet because it is still being discussed.

"Had the JC not complained like children, the picture WOULD HAVE BEEN REMOVED, when DD was INFORMED IT WAS ON THE JC, and nothing would have happened past that."

Had the picture not been replaced in a childish manner, it WOULD HAVE BEEN REMOVED when cb was INFORMED THAT THE HOST DIDN'T LIKE HIS BANDWIDTH BEING STOLEN, and nothing would have happened past that.

As for the host being contacted, this thread is the first place I heard about that. As far as I know, it isn't something that was discussed beforehand.

Oh, and yes, the webhost was contacted when the "fake linker" struck, to get the pages removed ASAP.

 

"No one's denying it so it must be true!"

Nice logic. Where's farraday to point that out?

Uh, I meant that in the sense that they have basically all but said that it was them, and we know it was.

Oh, and yes, the webhost was contacted when the "fake linker" struck, to get the pages removed ASAP.

A non sarcastic good job to the MS.

 

The "bandwidth excuse" is rubbish.

If one is concerned about bandwith issues coming from image leeching, one would simply remove the image not replace the image with one that is hundreds of times larger in filesize.

 

So you say?

Or if the bandwidth wasn't a big trouble but the principle was, they might accept the sacrifice just to get back at whoever was leeching.

Some people do act on principle you know. Although I can't claim this is what happpened you on the other hand only have supposition to prove guilt.

Afterall, something awful does something similar I believe even if it isn't directly effecting their chance at overcost bandwidth.

 

"And Vert as a general guideline only means that it's too widespread for them to actually patrol it effectively. If a specific case comes up they will moderate"

That's honestly not how I read it. I read it as a "Hey, it's not proper etiquette to do this, and it could potentially swap images on you, so look out."

Vertical

 

Yes well exmods like us apaprently don't count when deciding what things actually mean. All I'm saying is in practice I've seen "as a general guideline" to mean it's too widespread to control but if you piss us off watch out.

After all, "As a general guideline, all users here should respect one another's opinions and beliefs. " But no matter what you intended when you wrote it, I have had it quoted to me as a warning to back down.

 

farraday...
"they might accept the sacrifice just to get back at whoever was leeching."

That sacrifice, according to xie is "losing everything." Just looking at the practicality of what occurred, it seems to me that deletion of a single file is more advantageous to the individual than the webhost deleting all files because one was changed to something inappropriate.

Evidently, everyone involved got screwed in this. I hope all you guys learned something... whatever that may be.

 

> Or if the bandwidth wasn't a big trouble but the principle was, they might accept the sacrifice just to get back at whoever was leeching.

Some people do act on principle you know. Although I can't claim this is what happpened you on the other hand only have supposition to prove guilt.

My comment was only regarding the implausiblity of the excuse being bandied around here regarding bandwidth issues as the reason for the image swap.

I offered NO commentary on other motives, guilt, burden of proof, principles, reasons etc.

So please stop making things up that have no bearing on what I actually said, if you would be so kind.

 

We're offering possible expliantions which seems to be all the MS is doing although they seem to be sure they're without question right.

Atleast I'm acknowledging I don't know.

It would do wonders to see the MS do the same thing and then take the obvious step of saying when the issue is in question no action will be taken.

 

What about acting on principle when it comes to realizing someone has something on their server that shouldn't be there?

If he didn't want to risk losing stuff, he shouldn't have hosted that picture.

Likewise, if cb didn't want to risk having the link swapped on him, he should have made sure he was actually asking permission from the actual host, not just someone who he thought was the host.

Vertical

 

It's funny, all this arguing wouldn't be here if you guys had stuck by the policy you set forth and not decided to change it to suit your own needs.

 

There's always something else to argue about.

 

heh, narc

In any case he hosted the picture he took his chances, however the MS interfereing as it did does give the strong impression of retaliation.

Especially if the decision to contact the server was made in concert, which it may or may not have been.

After all while it is possible to read MS deliberations, reading someone's mind is much harder and therefore should weigh very little if at all in deliberations.

 

"There's always something else to argue about."

The irony of all of this is that you call us drama monkeys yet continue to argue every single time one of us posts. It's funny that someone who seemingly hates drama is always there to be found in the midst of it.

 

Our needs are to A) keep these boards as family friendly as possible, and B) to make talking about Star Wars as easy and fun as possible. If we had a vision statement, it would center around those two principles.

Our policies are guidelines (as opposed to laws) that we follow in order to maintain our commitment to fulfilling our needs in as fair and consistent way as possible. However, not all cases fall squarely inside guidelines. No set of guidelines is going to be able to cover every eventuality. If an unjust situation arises, it is the moderators duty to not simply follow board guidelines blindly regardless of whether those guidelines are just or not, but to deal with said situation in a way that they deem fair.

 

The irony of all of this is that you call us drama monkeys yet continue to argue every single time one of us posts. It's funny that someone who seemingly hates drama is always there to be found in the midst of it.

Now that I think of it, you?re right. Good point.


I?m locking this for a few hours, to give everyone time to cool down a little. It?ll be unlocked at the discretion of Sapient, Knight, or myself.

 

Let's not turn this personal now.