The Banning Of Ternian

Who: Ternian is a moderator at Episode-X.

What: He was banned from the JC.

Why: Exactly.

Let me start off by saying that although I'm a member of the X-Boards, I'm not Ternian's greatest buddy in the world, and he didn't instigate this what I'm doing right now: the only one behind it, and responsible for it, is me.

To make clear what we're talking about, here, at Episode-X, is a thread in which Ternian explains how and what. It was posted at the Anarchy Board, so cover your eyes and ears if you're sensitive to "that". And think of the children.

(If this link gets removed: go to Episode-X, check the forums, scroll down to the Anarchy Board).

I think that anyone who reads that post will be quite surprised Ternian is still banned. People have done worse things (man!) and they still post here, to use that age-old argument.

Also, the mods who wonder why there is so much animosity at the X-Boards should realize that because of things like this that animosity is not only understandable, but, in the main, justified. It's 2003, a brand new year, we have one more Star Wars prequel to go, so let's make a clean start and try to work on creating a relatively solid Star Wars fanbase, instead of all this petty bourgeois hurt feelings and misplaced pride. In a few years, you'll realize how ridiculous and useless all these little fights have been. One more film -- after that, it'll all be over as it is in its current form, so let's not ruin it. It should be light-hearted, not too serious, and fun. Remember that?

So here we go. Three points.

1. I want to know: who is responsible for the fact that Ternian is still not allowed to post here? There must be someone.

• If not: the better, anyone can unban him then.

2. Will that person be so kind to come here and explain his or her reasons, supposing there are any?

• As was mentioned in Ternian's original post, he was accused of withholding information concerning the hacking of the mod squad, and more of that semi-9/11 smoke-'em-out talk. If that's true, I'd like to have, here and now, the proof that he had anything to do with that. If there isn't any proof -- well, check your Constitution.



• Don't let this become a Python-like "yes, you did / no I didn't" sketch -- if you can't provide any proof, hold your accusations to yourself.

3. Remember that all I'm asking for is a solid explanation. I'm not accusing anyone; I merely want to know why, if what Ternian says it's true, and I have no reason to doubt that, he is still banned.

• And that should be discussed in this forum. You, who come running to me with your hands in the air to tell me I should "take this to PM": there are Star Wars fans, and there are people like you.

If possible, I'd like a normal, adult answer, from one person to another -- anyone who tries any of that government-esque, I-need-permission-from-the-Pope talk with me, will unfortunately fall victim to the centuries-old Law of the Fist, that I'll re-install especially for the occasion.

 

I know Scott declined to unban him, but due to his frequent trolling here, I don't see why he should be unbanned. In addition to his own bannings, he has caused difficulty for others that share his ISP. An accidental IP ban on a sock of his will inevitably result in the accidental banning of several good Australian members.

In my view, regardless of what he originally did (and I wasn't around for that), he should not be unbanned due to his trolling since then.

 

It was also my understanding that he was banned repeatedly for trolling on his own and with socks. But I'm just a regular guy, what do I know?

It's kind of a shame though, he had solid AOTC spoiler info. I just hope those in charge of his banning won't whine over the fact they've also driven away some of the better spoiler spies from this very site, Ternian included.

 

I looked at it it also seems like someone was able to get in to a part of the borads that only mods cango I think. I don't want to name the the poster over there because you really can't do much to the person sense there one a different borad. But if Ternian did soemthing that was not a loud then just keep Ternian banned.

Oh but you can srcoll down to to where I'm talking about in that borad.

Ok the guys user name was Barry. I don't know how but he was able to get in to a place where only mods, admis, and other top people shold be able to get into.

 

Until Vert or Josh or whoever in authority to do so decide that Scott's ruling on Tern's ban is outdated and/or unjustified, we're stuck with a legacy decision that hardly anyone agrees with....well, that's my opinion anyway, and while I know it's shared by others, I can't really speak for anyone other than myself.

 

If his trolling since his banning is really the only reason that he is still banned, that seems like a pretty flimsy reason to me. Did it occur to anyone that he might be trolling because he was unfairly banned? Perhaps if we tried to remedy the the mistakes of the past, the animosity of the present would fade away as well. At least he deserves a shot.

 

Did it occur to anyone that he might be trolling because he was unfairly banned?

An inappropriate response to banning is a very fair reason to continue the ban. I mean, the fact that someone was unfairly suspended from school doesn't give him the right to go and break all the windows, nor does it mitigate the consequences of window-breaking. And it might well increase the length of the suspension.

 

Apparently he was banned for trolling, 11 of his socks were banned in 1 day in late December, for aiding a hacker, and creating drama.

 

aiding a hacker makes him as bad as the hacker himself.



And besides, if you read the link, he clearly doesnt care to post here, so why change it?

 

He was banned for trolling now? So you're saying he's lying about why he was banned? Is there any actual proof that he ever aided a hacker? How did he "create drama"?

Just curious.

 

-removed, change of heart -

 

I am not saying he is lying deltron, just that there are always two sides to any story. As recently as 12/26/2002, less than 2 weeks ago, he was banned for trolling with 11 socks. It is this recent behavior that is going to keep him banned most likely. I can't comment any further on the "aiding a hacker" portion as I personally don't have first-hand knowledge of that. We will have to wait for the mod/mods who banned him to provide any further details.

 

11 socks? aint that the same as

ban * ban * ban * ban * ban * ban * ban* ban * ban * ban * ban = ummmm... we'll be seeing him back about 2005?

 

Let's leave the pot-shots towards Episode-X out of this, please. It's a great site, just with a different member-base (with a little bit of overlap).

I've discussed the issue with Ternian, Josh, and all of the other Administrators.

The situation is currently being discussed. The decision to ban Ternian was Scott's, and only he could reverse it, regardless of what any of the other Administrators would like to do.

Vertical

 

Actually, having a decent prod round the site, I will take back the last comments I made. But I dont get one thing. If the site is so good, why criticise others? Why not just stay where you're happy?

 

Well, if he was really banned unfairly, and not given a chance to be unbanned then this really is a two-way street. What could possibly be the harm in letting bygones be bygones, and at least giving him a shot to redeem himself? Who knows, maybe he would never post here again, maybe he would continue trolling in which case he would be banned instantly I'm sure, maybe he would once again become a valuable asset to this place... the only way to find out is to give him a shot. Why encourage this silly animosity between fans of Star Wars?

EDIT: Alright, thanks Vert.

 

Like any problem in life, there are two sides to any story. As Vertical said, it is being discussed.

 

Just stumbled upon this thread and want to add my 2½¢ (went up due to inflation! ). I'll respond with a quote from Babylon 5 that I feel is appropriate:
"A Vorlon once said 'Understanding is a 3-edged sword: Your side, their side, and the truth.'"
Just felt that was appropriate.
Having said that...
11 socks is a bit excessive and is usually a sign of trollish behavior in my experience.

 

I will say that though I do not know him, I brought this before the administration privately recently, and given the information that I was given the continuation of the ban seems just if not necessary.

 

An anthology of the replies so far.

KnightWriter: I know Scott declined to unban him, but due to his frequent trolling here, I don't see why he should be unbanned.

Was that the same reason this Scott gave, too? Did he decline to unban him because of his apparent trolling afterwards? Did he give any solid, logical reason at all?

Trolling. "Frequent". I like to have that specified. I know he did create a lot of socks one time, but if that's all -- if that's all after being banned for so long because of so little -- than he has to be forgiven for it. Maybe he was frustrated because he couldn't say what he wanted to say, for the Xth time during his ban. Completely understandable.

Also, it's not very relevant, as we're discussing his first ban, and whether that was fair or not. That first, then the rest.

Sebulba-X: Until Vert or Josh or whoever in authority to do so decide that Scott's ruling on Tern's ban is outdated and/or unjustified, we're stuck with a legacy decision that hardly anyone agrees with.

I'm beginning to get an image of Scott as the Almighty Zeus, whose Word is Irreversable Law.

At least we've learned now who is solely responsible for the banning: Scott. So, Scott, if you're in the audience, you're invited to join this thread and give your reasons -- like I said in my first post, that I'm not going to rehash.

JediGaladriel: An inappropriate response to banning is a very fair reason to continue the ban. I mean, the fact that someone was unfairly suspended from school doesn't give him the right to go and break all the windows, nor does it mitigate the consequences of window-breaking. And it might well increase the length of the suspension.

No, no, no. If I were your debating teacher, I'd let you write "I shall not use false analogies" a hundred times.

This messageboard is no school. It's a messageboard.

Mara_Jade_Fan: Apparently he was banned for trolling, 11 of his socks were banned in 1 day in late December, for aiding a hacker, and creating drama.

"Apparently" means nothing to me. "Aiding a hacker": proof. "Creating drama": proof. There's an old saying on these boards that goes "PPOR". I kind of like it, it seems fair enough.

Vertical: The situation is currently being discussed.

Wonderful, because I'm discussing it here. So maybe we can exchange what we know and what we think about it. (Actually, there isn't much to discuss. It's all quite simple, as far as I can see. He either aided the hacker or he didn't -- and if you can't prove he did: welcome back, Ternian.)

The decision to ban Ternian was Scott's, and only he could reverse it, regardless of what any of the other Administrators would like to do.

Even if the ban is unjustified? Do you possibly realize how incredibly sad, ridiculous and unhealthy that is?

If someone had told me, as a 7-year-old, when I watched Star Wars for the first time, that those films would somehow spawn pitiful situations like this, I would have pointed at him, laughed, and cast him off into the desert.

DarthSapient: Like any problem in life, there are two sides to any story.

Like any normal person, I'd like to hear the other side then. Hence this thread, complete with invitation to the responsible Grand Inquisiteur.

Qui_Gon_Jim23: I will say that though I do not know him, I brought this before the administration privately recently, and given the information that I was given the continuation of the ban seems just if not necessary.

Much too vague.

 

Was that the same reason this Scott gave, too? Did he decline to unban him because of his apparent trolling afterwards? Did he give any solid, logical reason at all?

Trolling. "Frequent". I like to have that specified. I know he did create a lot of socks one time, but if that's all -- if that's all after being banned for so long because of so little -- than he has to be forgiven for it. Maybe he was frustrated because he couldn't say what he wanted to say, for the Xth time during his ban. Completely understandable.

I think Scott just stayed with the same explanation that he originally used, and trolling didn't play any part in it. His reasoning, I think, was that Ternian was helping or working with dp.

He has trolled with his numerous socks at least half a dozen times, typically in Communications. Since his IP address is shared by several other members, anytime he was IP banned, it caused trouble for other people. His threads and posts have typically been nothing but spam and parodies, having little to do with serious discussion.

In your opinion, do you think he should be unbanned despite that? I do think what he's done since is relevant. I can't speak too much to the original ban, so I'm just sticking with what I know.

 

Also, it's not very relevant, as we're discussing his first ban, and whether that was fair or not. That first, then the rest.

So, let?s say the administration comes out and says ?Well, whoops, we goofed, we?re sorry. The initial ban was unjust.? That still doesn?t excuse his actions since then. He might very well have been unbanned already if he hadn?t trolled here.

If some trigger happy moderator bans me unjustly, and I come back with a sock and troll, then the problem shifts from being entirely on the part of the moderator to being on both the part of the moderator and myself. And the more I troll, the further the burden shifts over to me. That?s what?s happened in this came in my opinion.


At least we've learned now who is solely responsible for the banning: Scott. So, Scott, if you're in the audience, you're invited to join this thread and give your reasons -- like I said in my first post, that I'm not going to rehash.

I?m under the impression that for the most part, Scott has left the building. Which is why it?s Vertical and Josh that are discussing it, rather than Vertical and Josh and Scott.


No, no, no. If I were your debating teacher, I'd let you write "I shall not use false analogies" a hundred times.

In my opinion, if you?re going to ignore someone?s analogy and call it false, it?s generally a good idea to explain why you think that the analogy is inappropriate. Otherwise, you look like you don?t see any way to logically refute the analogy and have been forced to try to dodge the issue. Using sarcasm just exacerbates the issue, and makes it seem even more like you?re trying to dodge a point.

So please, explain why JediGaladriel?s analogy does not apply here.


"Apparently" means nothing to me. "Aiding a hacker": proof. "Creating drama": proof. There's an old saying on these boards that goes "PPOR". I kind of like it, it seems fair enough.

Cut her some slack. She?s obviously unfamiliar with the situation (I admit, I am as well), and probably just reading off the user notes. A better question would be to ask who did those bannings, and then ask them to show where and how the problem was.


Even if the ban is unjustified? Do you possibly realize how incredibly sad, ridiculous and unhealthy that is?

So, when a person is banned unjustly they have a right to troll? Is that what you?re trying to say?


Like any normal person, I'd like to hear the other side then. Hence this thread, complete with invitation to the responsible Grand Inquisiteur.

The other side seems to be that since he was banned he?s repeatedly come back and trolled this place. If someone starts a thread asking for YOTS to be unbanned, should he be unbanned on the basis that his initial ban was over a long time ago, and that his trolling actions since his initial ban are unimportant?

He was banned. He came back and trolled multiple times. I don?t really know what else has to be said. Judging by the information in this thread, he?s become a serial troll since he was banned. I was under the impression that the JC generally doesn?t welcome serial trolls back with open arms.


Much too vague.

So, QGJ he doesn?t want to abuse the trust that was placed in him by the moderators when he was elected by his fellow members into the AC. He was in the same position that you are in now, he took his concerns to the administration (presumably in the AC), they explained exactly what the situation was, and he changed his mind about the issue.

Maybe you don?t believe in the AC, but I believe that they?re regular members with no special pro-moderator or anti-Ternian bias?. AC3, some of whom came from a message board that I?ve heard was somewhat anti-administration, seems to approve or at least not have any serious objections to his continued banning.

Now, we don?t know what?s going on in those private forums (if you do, please PM me and tell me, I?m very interested in knowing ), but presumably they have enough against Ternian to convince a dozen

 

Regarding the conditions surrounding the original ban:
It must be noted that Ternian's original ban fell under a different Terms of Service than is currently in place right now.

At the time Ternian was banned, there was no right granted to any user - expressed or implied - that revocation of privileges for this site needed to be justified. The right to revoke anyone's privileges at any time for any/no reason was at the administration's sole discretion. This was clearly explained in the Terms of Service for the site linked to on the header of every page and every time Ternian posted.

If Scott or Josh disliked the kind of car you drove or wore crappy shoes, then they did in fact had the right to ban you because of it. In fact, if they chose to ban someone for no reason at all, they had the right to ban them.

However, the issue of whether that clause of the Terms of Service is acceptable or not is a moot point, as it no longer exists under our current conditions.

The original condition is now out of the way.

 

I say keep him banned. Your loss is our gain!

 

Just for some background information.

And hi Sithy!