Senate Official Forum Rules and Policy Feedback Thread

Discussion in 'Archive: Community Rules and Policy' started by Mr44, Aug 28, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    That's a matter between OWM and I, to which I think he's clear on the raison d'etre. If he wishes to discuss it, that's his call but I feel very strongly I ought not discuss it without his consent.

    Suffice to say, however, it was something I was deeply opposed to doing and did try to prevent happening a few times.

    E_S
  2. Obi-Wan McCartney Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    I was banned because I spelled Kimball Kinnison with an e, as in Kimball Kinneson. Apparently, the mods felt I did this on purpose, and that I was baiting Kimball, and since baiting is against the rules, I was banned.


  3. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    Here's a definition I found on the net which I find appropriate:

    "petty"

    adjective

    1 petty, small-minded

    contemptibly narrow in outlook; "petty little comments"; "disgusted with their small-minded pettiness"

    2 fiddling, footling, lilliputian, little, Mickey_Mouse, niggling, piddling, piffling, petty, picayune, trivial

    (informal terms) small and of little importance; "a fiddling sum of money"; "a footling gesture"; "our worries are lilliputian compared with those of countries that are at war"; "a little (or small) matter"; "Mickey Mouse regulations"; "a dispute over nig


    http://www.wordreference.com/definition/petty
  4. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    You forgot to mention I told you in PM's beforehand that in such cases, where baiting can be established (as I did), that per MS policy a baiter is banned, and the baitee is warned.

    You also should mention how many chances I gave you, pre- and post-ban. If you're interested in being fair...

    E_S
  5. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    That's fantastic, because after all OWM would make the most objective observer in this.

    Does this website also have "subjective", whilst we're playing word games?

    Hmm, maybe I should have stayed in law so I could have had the notion of making a decision after I hear both sides (rather than before) beaten out of me, just like you seem to be employing to spectacular effect... [face_plain]

    You know what, I'm not even going to bother explaining myself on this. I did my job, I did it well and if you chose to take the side of OWM at face value, well done. Yep, we're all petty fascists.

    "O judgement, thou art fled to brutish beasts and men hath lost their reason!"

    E_S
  6. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    I can vouch for Ender's level of concern and objectivity here. I know he tried to do what he felt was best, and definitely didn't rush into it, or do it thoughtlessly.

    I think it's more than a simple situation, and I'd also like to add taht discussing bans in public is generally frowned upon in most JC forums. Perhaps the Senate is a bit more lenient in that department (which would reflect on the Senate moderators).
  7. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    E_S - this is not a legal matter nor a court of law so I am not playing lawyer. Just an observer.

    Banning someone because they spell another member's name wrong, even intentionally and after they have been warned about it, seems petty to me. It's trivial. If it upsets KK then he is being petty and trivial IMO. For the record, my comment was directed at KK rather then E_S.

    That's just my opinion. For what it's worth. If there is more to it and OWM is not representing the situation accurately then it's not worth much.
  8. Obi-Wan McCartney Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    He did warn me. See, I had complained about Kimball getting upset with me for not spelling his name right, the quote from the last page was the one I had a problem with.

    But I never once believed that ES actually believed I intentionally misspelled the name, which I didn't do.

    I don't want ES to get flustered over it, he is doing what he thinks is best, and part of his reasoning was based in good faith. I only discuss it here because ES seemed to say it was ok in response to Losts' question.

    I've PM'd him about it, because I don't believe it has been established that I did it on purpose OR that there is ample evidence to suggest so, because for one, I DIDN'T do it on purpose, and I can't find it. There is a single instance like six months ago I found where he corrected my misspelling, but that's it.

    So I just find it hard to believe anyone would think I did it intentionally, especially because I know for a FACT I didn't do it intentionally.

    So, knowing I didn't do it on purpose, and knowing that the rule is that the baitor typically gets a ban, and the baitee who baits back gets a warning, what happens to the baitee if the baitor didn't actually bait, but the baitee only PERCEIVED a baiting?

    More succinctly, if a person believes they are being baited, and then baits, are they considered an original baitor or treated as someone who had genuinely been baited? [face_thinking]

    EDIT: Don't get sore, ES. I'm not sore at you. I just enjoy having discussions and learning points of view, human nature, etc. Regardless, I KNOW you made the wrong call on this one because I KNOW that I didn't misspell his name on purpose. I'm just interested in finding out how you honestly came to that mistaken conclusion. I don't hold it against you, I am just honestly puzzled because I can't find all these past posts you speak of. Admit it ES, you love 'teh drama!!1!' (is that right?)
  9. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    A few things:

    Whilst people frequently called me Endor and I made fun of them for it, I can see it being taken as a sign of disrespect. I remeber Vezner getting offended because I called him "Vez-na", trying to make it sound like I was saying it with emphasis on the syllables. Some people consider it a measure of respect, some don't.

    Secondly, KK didn't ask me to ban him, that was my call. It was my judgment, (and if I'm wrong I apologise), that given the history between the two, "on the basis of probability" :p (take that lawyers!) that indeed OWM was trying to get a small rise out of KK. Now, I admitted I could have been wrong, but I didn't think so at the time and as I said, I did give OWM the advice to drop it and move on.

    And OWM, frankly I ******* hate drama. You want petty? How about this entire issue. The Senate was going beautifully until recently, when a few small incidents became examples of the tyrrany of the mods. We have a thankless job to do, and all this petty pissing contest crap just gets in the way. Can we all stop behaving like utter children and stop trying to play Che Guevara vs the Man?

    Awesome.

    E_S

    EDIT: Clarity
  10. DeathStar1977 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 31, 2003
    star 4
    ES

    DS, DM's edit wasn't about disagreeing with the sentiment, it was about what frankly that point was producing in other people.

    IMO that is other people?s problem if they can?t handle a little harsh criticism from time to time, not the fault of DM.

    Is there anyone else who wants to doubt us, just so we can get it over and done with?

    I don?t doubt you, or KK or Mr44, not one bit. But I will raise an issue if I feel it needs to be raised.

    And furthermore, in addition to Jewish holidays, I celebrate Festivus.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festivus

    And part of Festivus is the ?Airing of Grievances?.

    And OWM, frankly I ******* hate drama. You want petty? How about this entire issue. The Senate was going beautifully until recently, when a few small incidents became examples of the tyrrany of the mods. We have a thankless job to do, and all this petty pissing contest crap just gets in the way. Can we all stop behaving like utter children and stop trying to play Che Guevara vs the Man?

    While some do behave like utter children, IMO there are certainly legitimate questions being asked. Kinda reflective of politics as a whole?the idiocy of some shouldn?t prevent the good questions and answers from being pursued.

    And furthermore, how can OWM still post if he?s been banned? [face_mischief]
  11. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Let me explain a little on my side of this entire issue.

    For quite a long time, OWM has been misspelling my name. Use the search function looking for "Kinneson" to see a selection of examples over the past year, and all but one (a FanFic piece with a character named Kinneson) are from OWM or quoting something he posted. Considering the issues with the search function, those are only samples and not the entire list (Google can provide more examples).

    He and I have a long and rocky relationship, with both of us having the knack of getting under the other's skin. I have asked him several times (politely) over the previous year for him to at least make an effort to spell it correctly. The repeated attempts were ignored and ineffective. Is it something minor? Yes, but he's also had a history of doing minor things to try to irritate me, ranging back years, even to before I was a mod.

    After my post about which he is complaining, he and I exchanged PMs, with the last one exchanged on 11/18 at 9:40am. As of that time, it appeared to me (based upon those PMs) that we had resolved our little dispute. At about the same time, I got a PM from Ender_Sai telling me that OWM was complaining about my remark. I responded to E_S that I was PMing with OWM and trying to resolve the matter.

    More than a day later, OWM made his post in this thread continuing to complain about the matter, almost 36 hours after it appeared to be resolved via PM. He was warned by Ender, and chose to ignore the warning. Ender_Sai then followed up on his warning. I didn't know anything about it until the next morning.

    I had nothing to do with taking any actions against OWM, but I do support the actions he took. Regardless of the intent, if a user has repeatedly misspelled another user's name, a user with whom they have had regular conflicts, and has repeatedly ignored requests to stop, then it is entirely reasonable to believe that they are baiting the other user. MS policy does nto require that you stop and find out what the actual intent is (if you ask someone "Are you baiting that person?" the likely response will be "No" regardless of whether they really are or not), but call on the moderator to make their best judgement.

    Kimball Kinnison
  12. Obi-Wan McCartney Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    Ender, I don't know why you are getting upset.

    If you made a decision you felt was correct, then were is the evidence you spoke of? Where is this evidence that demonstrates I did it on purpose?

    Look, I don't feel any grave injustice was done to me, but I do know that you made a mistake and I am just curious as to why.

    Where did you get the idea based on posts between me and Kimball that I would intentionally misspell his name? You told KW and posted that there was a history of this, but I can't find this exensive history of him correcting me.

    Furthermore, the nature of KK's post was such that even HE didn't believe I did it on purpose. He was trying to get a "ZING!" in my insulting spelling abilities and making a condescending remark.


    -Right, so the deal was, if I drop my complaint against Kimball's rudeness, then you wouldn't ban me? That I never did understand.


    Oh come on man, it's all in the interests of spirited debate and consistency (see, I probably misspelled that right there!) in moderating. People can't air greviences and complain about what they perceive is unfair? How does that bother you? I think the Senate is going fine.

    Maybe this is petty. But it has almost like, real world implications! It seems to me you "rushed to judgment" on whether or not I intentionally misspelled KK's name in order to "bait" him. Think of it from my perspective. I complain about a mod, and then I get banned...seems strange. Esepecially from my perspective, where I know I didn't misspell his name on purpose in order to bait him.

    I would have let the matter drop, except that you claimed there was a history of me doing this to Kimball, on purpose. I can't find this post history, and I have asked you several times to produce it. Look, Im' sorry, I know you are a good guy, you have been patient with me and I appreciate that. But wouldn't you be curious?

    Where is this evidence?[face_thinking]


    EDIT:

    KIMBALL, I am truly baffled that you believe I misspelled your name in some subtle attempt to piss you off. And in PM's, you stood by your statement, and in ES's, he just said you were his superior and there was nothing he could do.

    So I decided to take it to the people, in this thread. I aired my grevience and was content to let it be the end. One thing ES also warned me about was asking you to PPOR on me misspelling your name.

    So please do so. If you'll notice, when you do a search of "Kinneson," there are plenty of posts in which I misspelled your name and you said nothing, and only one instance like six months ago where you made a correction.
  13. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Actually, I was trying to finally get your attention on the matter, after repeatedly asking you to stop. Asking politely didn't work. It was just ignored.

    As for evidence, as I mentioned in my last post, you can try the search function to see a partial history of it. Google shows other cases. The long history combined with the repeated requests to stop leaves two options. Either you were ignoring the requests (wither intentionally or not), or you were deliberately doing it.

    The history stretches back well over a year, and you can quickly find it by using the "search" link at the top of each and every page on the boards. The really interesting part part is that you used to spell it correctly.

    Kimball Kinnison

    EDIT: So please do so. If you'll notice, when you do a search of "Kinneson," there are plenty of posts in which I misspelled your name and you said nothing, and only one instance like six months ago where you made a correction.

    I have corrected you more than once on it. The search functionhere is not the best. Google gives completely different results than the boards' seach does. I know that there are other times outside the results listed that I have corrected you on the matter.
  14. Obi-Wan McCartney Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    Right, but even according to you, I'm a bad speller! I rely on spell check and my secretary, neither of which I have here. Sometimes I spell words right, sometimes I spell them wrong.

    Secondly, I'd like to see these posts. All I can see is that I misspelled your name, and one single time over six months ago, you said "it's Kinnison, not Kinneson, please spell it right."

    So perhaps, Kimball, you can post maybe three examples of your asking me to spell it right within the last six months. And if you can't, just tell me, in your honest estimation, did you REALLY believe I spelt your name wrong, or was it just a plausible defense to your needlessly antagonistic post?


    -I checked your links, and I can't find anywhere you "repeatedly" asked me to stop, I found one instance over six months ago. Furthermore, in almost every single one of those examples from your links, I spelled your name wrong AND YOU SAID NOTHING AT ALL!

    If it bothered you so much, why didn't you correct me all those times, as you claim you did?

    (On a side not, one of those links was to a 1st amendment argument we were having about the scope of the 1st amendment. In it, you claimed the 1st amendment protects parental religous freedom regarding teaching of sex ed. BUt where does it say so in the constitution? Why allow such a broad reading? It's the point I've been trying to get across in the privacy discussions, that even you will read protections into the constitutions that aren't explicit if it suits your purpose, but I'll take it to the other thrad.
  15. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    OWM, why don't you let it drop? I know that Ender's told you to drop it, and all you are doing at this point is stirring up trouble. I know that he's also had to delete at least one post of yours from this thread in an attempt to protect you from further action.

    I don't have time to hunt them down at this time, but I do stand by Ender's decision. Looking over even the limited history available right now, it is enough for a moderator to reasonably decide that your actions were baiting.

    Kimball Kinnison
  16. Obi-Wan McCartney Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    I'll let it drop, I just want to be clear here about a few things. Based on the fact that I have misspelled your name before, and in one instance you corrected me (but in all other instances said nothing), ES determined I was intentionally baiting you?

    You were the one that told him I was baiting you, so are you honestly telling me that you felt I was intentionally baiting you? Because your PM's just seemed to indicate that "nicely" telling me didn't work, that's why you had to do so in a "hostile" manner. Doesn't sound like someone who thinks I did it on purpose.

    The truth is, Kimball, if it were anyone other than you, there is no way I would have been banned for misspelling your name and reporting your overreaction. The reason I was banned was because I cited your post in this thread as something I'd like to see avoided. So unless I see the evidene, I have to assume that ES just took your word for it.

    It's all good, ES, I guess you really did believe that I did it on purpose when you acted. Too bad I didn't.
  17. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    But OWM, I never promised I'd make perfect judgements. I only ever, from day one, promised honesty.

    Consider, that I didn't rush to judgement as KW said. I contacted non-Senate mods for advice, to make as impartial a decision as possible.

    Based upon a history of recidivism that I both remembered* and could find, coupled with a history between you two of friendly antagonism and, for want of a better word, rivalry; I concluded that in all probability, it was intended to get a rise out of KK, as a slight disrespect.

    (* - It's worth noting I do bugger all research in the Senate; most of what I say is based on memory. I have the ability to recall most of what I read, which makes me a menace at Trivial Pursuit)

    My decision was based on probability.

    As I said, I never promised I'd be perfect. I said I'd be honest, and that's what I'm doing. I've never been anything less than that in my decision-making.

    If it wasn't your intent, as I said, I apologise. I gave you less ban time than your record dictates, I protected you from yourself and gave you warnings that if you were adamant I needed to action your complaint against KK, that I'd have to treat your actions as baiting and I told you what MS policy on baiters was.

    Really, OWM, the blame for your ban falls upon your shoulders. I executed it, and with obvious reluctance; but you're the one who had the power to prevent it.

    And no, KK didn't use the phrase baiting in his PMs. From the second PM I got from you to really only a few hours ago, I didn't speak to KK all weekend. This was my call, OWM, not his - just like I said.


    Well, in this case, it's not like a policy decision, it's an issue of judgement where determining right or wrong is next to impossible. You, in your vocational capacity, must appreciate how taking your word for it remains hard - not because I distrust you, rather because of your connection to the whole ordeal.

    E_S
  18. Obi-Wan McCartney Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5

    -Yeah right! That's like the abusive husband telling the wife that if she had done the dishes he wouldn't have to give her the closed-fist treatment.

    In all honesty, it never occurred to me that you would ban me because I never once thought you would actually take the position that I actually was trying to bait Kimball. You took his word for it, remembered that we have had disagreements before, and pronounced me guilty. You told KW that there was a history of my doing this on purpose, yet, no history can be found.

    -Right, that doesn't make any sense. For the record, under whatever oath I can take on the internet, I typed Kinneson instead of Kinnison because that's how it sounds in my head, I just spelled his name wrong. But again, for all your claims about my objectivity, for your statements about my connection to this and your inability to take me at my word, why did you simply take Kimball at his word?

    Why, when after you told me that Kimball is your superior and that you couldn't take any action against him, decide that you could believe his version of events and then ban me?

    You claimed in PM's and here on the board, as did Kimball Kinnison (wow, I almost did it again, I'm sitting here typing and I almost typed with an e and was like correct that quick!), that there were a bunch of posts where I misspell his name and he corrects me. I can find not more than one such post, six months ago, and in the rest of them, he doesnt correct me at all!

    NOW you claim its out of remembering all these times I misspelled his name and he corrected me? The whole thing is susicious because the reasoning keeps changing.

    I believe you thought you were doing the right thing, but the fact is, you were mistaken, you rushed to judgment. Not to action, but to the judgment that I did it on purpose. You made a bad call, but its forgiven (especially since you forgave my outbursts afterwards.) BUt its still suspicious to me, since from my perspective, I know I didn't do anything wrong, but when I complain about Kimball, I get banned. I get reasoning that sounds like balony to me, and then you both change your story and now claim you simply "remembered" these past posts that you "can't find" because you "bugger research," and that it was all based on "probability."
  19. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    Why don't you guys just take this to PM - otherwise you invite commentary and while I would love to comment I think it would probably just fuel the fire.

    Unless of course that is what is intended by this thread (the commentary that is) in which I'll just shut up and sit back down in the corner :p
  20. RavenKing Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 28, 2005
    star 1
    [face_laugh] I just got that! So that's why Chev is called Che. That's a much better nickname for him. Not that I'm calling him childish, of course...

  21. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    That has nothing to do with it.

    I called him Che because it was easier to type than Chev. Simple, universal human laziness. :D



    E_S
  22. Obi-Wan McCartney Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    Or were you really BAITING HIM!!!:eek:
  23. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    OWM, part of your problem is that you tend to not let things go, flogging that horse well into the afterlife.

    Yes, it's very funny, your constant references to getting banned; but is it possible we could, oh you know, move on now? :)

    Awesome!

    E_S
  24. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    After some typical martyrdom drama, I've decided I'm sticking to public warnings rather than private ones. I'm not suggesting the histrionics aren't fun, but I'd prefer to leave it open for all to see what constitutes OK/Not OK. :D

    E_S
  25. Obi-Wan McCartney Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    Don't be so sensitive Ender.:-B @};-
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.