So, what's all this bullshit about Hikarusa not being able to post?

[Defeatist Elitist]

That's some pretty awful reasoning you have there. 'White People Suck' should be treated the exact same as saying 'Black People Suck', you know why? Because both are racist, end of discussion. Why are you honestly saying it's OK simply because of a majority?

Racism is entirely based on minority and majority. If the majority is racist, they have a greater effect. If the minority is racist they have a lesser effect. Racism is always stupid, however a minority is more likely to have felt the actual effects of racism (due to being a minority), and therefore their being offended by something racist is more understandable, somewhat. As I said though, I dunno if black people suck IS offensive enough. I'm thinking it isn't, but it's possible it is.

[ReformBlade]

Racism is entirely based on minority and majority. If the majority is racist, they have a greater effect. If the minority is racist they have a lesser effect. Racism is always stupid, however a minority is more likely to have felt the actual effects of racism (due to being a minority), and therefore their being offended by something racist is more understandable, somewhat. As I said though, I dunno if black people suck IS offensive enough. I'm thinking it isn't, but it's possible it is.

I don't think racism is as simple as you say it is. If something's offensive to any number of people, it's offensive, end of story. Just because everyone in a room, for example, is OK with calling women 'fucking twats' does NOT make it suddenly inoffensive. However, I will cede that the if everyone is OK with it that there is no problem among them, however, if rules are put forth and are infringed upon, however slightly, and even one person is offended, I see no problem with enforcing said rules, or somehow getting them enforced... You know what I'm saying?

[Defeatist Elitist]

I don't think racism is as simple as you say it is. If something's offensive to any number of people, it's offensive, end of story. Just because everyone in a room, for example, is OK with calling women 'fucking twats' does NOT make it suddenly inoffensive. However, I will cede that the if everyone is OK with it that there is no problem among them, however, if rules are put forth and are infringed upon, however slightly, and even one person is offended, I see no problem with enforcing said rules, or somehow getting them enforced... You know what I'm saying?

I understand what you're saying, but I don't mean things are offensive or inoffensive just because there are or aren't people there.

[Malexis]

I usually miss tiny shots like that. Anyway ... when I said I didn't know Hika, I meant that I didn't speak with him on a regular basis. We've talked ... posted at each other if that's how you want to put it plenty of times. I know from personal experience that I've no reason to like the guy. If his posts aren't aimed at putting me down, they're aimed at putting someone else down. Like Revan's but Revan seems to take a break once in awhile to let the heat die down.

I've also gotten to know the staff a little bit, and I can hardly argue against their decision given all I've experienced from him.

I'm sorry, Phoenix, did I give you the impression I was targeting you specifically?

I wasn't, deary. The truth is I was merely making a passing comment, at how not everyone has any idea who he even is, yet seem to form a biased opinion with little to no information.

True though I was partially referring to you, thanks for clearing that up.

EDIT:

I may as well point this out as well, ladies and gentlemen.

It's true, Hika was apparently intentionally attempting to offend. I mean, he claims to have not been intending offense, and it comes down to whether he is credible at all or not, which I do not know.

Although, I should note this: If he wasn't trying to be offensive, but ended up insulting someone, it's not fair to warn or suspend him for that. Maybe a verbal warn and request/demand that he change the name and/or post causing problems.

But I'll bet anything that, while someone reads over this topic, any number of things that Revan, Esau of Isaac, Jyosua, Phoenix, or any other member who posted in this topic, will probably offend them.

What offends any one human is entirely subjective and will certainly be different from every single other individual. With some billion people in the world, it's easy to offend even groups of people by making what you think is a passing comment.

---

I'm not at all asking you to undo the ban, only to slightly modify your argument for it. (though you don't have to argue at all if you don't want to)

Edited June 2, 2010 by 'Lexis

[Life]

Can we sticky this shit? It's been very entertaining and I'm basically tearing from laughter at 1:30 in the morning.

My quick little view on it is that it was rather harmless (in my opinion). Yeah, he was trying to push the staff a little bit but giant shitstorms (eg. now) only happen when someone decides for an entire group that he's gone too far. This isn't me taking a shot at anyone, it's me saying that Hika probably wouldn't be banned if nobody really gave too much of a shit about his little playful stuff. To me, he's been quite interesting and hilarious to watch.

In any case, yeah.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Can we sticky this shit? It's been very entertaining and I'm basically tearing from laughter at 1:30 in the morning.

It's what Hika would have wanted.

[Life]

It's what Hika would have wanted.

Really?

Hey Jyo, how fast can you delete this topic?

[Dr. Tarrasque]

I guess that's kind of understandable, but first of all, he still shouldn't be reading my posts, and if he does then the contents are kind of his fault, and second, well, I dunno, but it's kind of hard to tell when Nishi is being serious. I've honestly gotten him incredibly pissed off in FFtF and thought he was joking the entire time.

1) Probably. Hardly anyone uses the ignore function as well as they should.

2) So you took it seriously when he said you're on his ignore list but didn't when you got him "incredibly pissed off?" From this, it seems like you pretty much chose to go with the one you found most convenient....

I'm saying that MOST OF THEIR JUSTIFICATION FOR BANNING HIM isn't "well he should be banned by the rules" but instead is "well, if you really dig in the rules, you can find some parts that kind of justify us banning him on pure fiat, and we think this is okay because he is an asshole", and THAT is why I'm trying to say he isn't an asshole. He should probably have been warned/suspended. I just don't think he should have been banned.

Probably not from your view but after double checking the situation, rules and guidelines, it doesn't look like we banned him for that second statement under quote marks.

To begin, 100% warn isn't necessary to ban a user which was stated in the announcement Narga linked. I thought this was common knowledge among the users since I knew this before my promotion and some users were axed quickly (before 100%) so it should've become apparent to lots of users here. Anyway, what kind of people do you think are likely to end up banned early? Alt accounts, someone posting forbidden content (Porn, ROMs, etc) a couple times in a short time span time and people who disregard the staff's warning because if they're not listening, they're just going to keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again so what's the point of delaying something so obviously inevitable?

Now, some may think that Hika didn't disregard the staff's warnings and some may think he did, so be it. From where I'm standing though, it seems more like he did disregard the staff's warnings.

When people think they've been wrongly warned about something, they voice their disagreement, whether they're arrogant or not and I sometimes get complaints from users about their warns because it isn't clear enough to them. According to Hika, he didn't understand some of the warns Shuuda gave him and thought they were wrong. Thing is, he didn't dispute this until AFTER his ban and since he didn't do so during the time he wasn't banned, the only conclusions to be drawn from this is that he either understood why he was warned and had no objections or that he simply didn't give a damn. We can't read minds so there's no way we could tell that he didn't understand some of his warns unless he said so and he didn't.

Same goes for his name changes, he knows that he's been previously warned for some of them before and by making this name change without asking anyone of the stuff whether or not it would be okay, this mostly suggest the he's once again disregarding the staff's warning and doesn't care, giving little to no reason for any objection to the thought of him having no intention to follow the rules.

After the ban is when he finally voices his disagreements... how is this different from your typical situation in which someone insults another and then says he was joking after the consequence?

Edited June 2, 2010 by Speedwagon

[Narga_Rocks]

Either way, yeah, he probably should have been warned/suspended for "Stupid Nigger" and he was. Hell, he could even have been suspended for "White People Suck", but he was BANNED, outright, without following precedent, with inconsistent warning, and with him getting portrayed as someone he was not.

ignore rule y first time. punishment = x.

ignore rule y again after previously getting x because of ignoring it once. Why should the punishment be the same the second time? That doesn't actually make sense to me. We tell you not to do something, either don't do it again or make a ticket saying why you should be allowed.

It's not inconsistent for punishment 1 to be different from punishment 2.

I doubt I'd be banned unless I continued... since I've had no history of controversial name changes. Hika does, apparently, so that more likely played a part. And it should have. Prior arrests are taken into account with some prison sentences, yes? Because normally punishments are meant to be a deterrent, and repeated offenses imply that so far it isn't working.

Exactly. Like speedwagon said, too. I agreed with the decision because it seemed to me that there was a clear message from his actions that he had no intention of following the rules.

Jyo takes these administrative decisions because he fears this place will become worse, Hika's influence was like that of a pebble in flowing river.

Right. It's all Jyo's fault. Despite him being offline between when we first noticed the new name (about 21 minutes after the name change) and when the hammer of ban came down (early May 22 because that's when enough mods voted). Wow. Jyo has telepathic powers and is controlling us mods from hundreds or thousands of miles away. I should start wearing a tin hat.

He's voiced his dislike of being referred to as a pedophile or anyone trying to screw an under-aged girl several times (probably more than you being on his ignore list). You called him a sex offender and you know that people can see ignored posts if they choose to do so (he did and reported it to me). It's hardly any different from someone insulting another and then saying "I was joking" as an excuse.

XxWolfxX

And I don't dislike him, anyway. I'm indifferent (like speedwagon said). I am mostly on the fire emblem forums, not fftf. I don't see him much. I have no personal bias for or against him. He's just another person I don't know. Well, aside from having to look through reports on things he's said or other people have said and looking back through the thread to see what prompted it.

I have a question. Did anybody think to tell Hikarusa that they didn't like his name change?

like others have said, crash. In the topic Hika created. The topic that is basically pointing a wild animal with a stick and his reaction to the ban like surprise he got attacked. Maybe I shouldn't call myself and other staff members wild animals, but the point stands.

"Yeah, I got warned for this before. But you know what? I'm not going to stop. Then I'm going to throw down a challenge." Um, NO.

Anyway, what's this complaint about a week? He got banned on May 22. Less than 4 days after the change (May 18, around 9 pm EDT). Actually, less than 80 hours later. Barely more than 3 days. We aren't on all the time. Well, speedwagon and I are on rather frequently, but people have stuff to do. Even I'm sometimes unable to get on for a day or two. A single mod can't ban people unless its extreme things like porn or if it's obvious advertisement bots or alts or whatever. Isn't it a good thing that we waited until we had a certain number of staff members voice their say on the matter? Would it have been better had shuuda and speedwagon just banned him outright on the day of without discussing it with anyone? You can't honestly believe that's the better way. Delays happen. And 1 week is a gross exaggeration. Granted an admin didn't move him to the exiled group immediately after we applied the ban, but that's not actually important.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

Blaming Jyo for bans of members people like is going to be the next Gheb fad.

XxWolfxX

Pretty much who I had in mind when I said (Disagreement = Trolling, GG).

Edited June 2, 2010 by Speedwagon

[Narga_Rocks]

Blaming Jyo for bans of members people like is going to be the next Gheb fad.

But I determined the secret. He's like Matt Parkman with better range. Hmm. Tin hats probably don't work on Matt Parkman. Uh oh. :( Maybe he's making me type this now!

Pretty much who I had in mind when I said (Disagreement = Trolling, GG).

Well, that and non-apology apologies (Interceptor had a great line about that) and the insulting people and then saying "no offence" or "I was joking" or words to that effect.

[Florete]

Well, that and non-apology apologies (Interceptor had a great line about that) and the insulting people and then saying "no offence" or "I was joking" or words to that effect.

"I'm sorry you put your face in the way of my fist."

I literally lol'd.

[Defeatist Elitist]

1) Probably. Hardly anyone uses the ignore function as well as they should.

2) So you took it seriously when he said you're on his ignore list but didn't when you got him "incredibly pissed off?" From this, it seems like you pretty much chose to go with the one you found most convenient....

2) I didn't know if it was serious or not until I tried to send him a PM and it said "This User has blocked you", at which point I was pretty damn certain. :P

Probably not from your view but after double checking the situation, rules and guidelines, it doesn't look like we banned him for that second statement under quote marks.

I beg to differ.

To begin, 100% warn isn't necessary to ban a user which was stated in the announcement Narga linked. I thought this was common knowledge among the users since I knew this before my promotion and some users were axed quickly (before 100%) so it should've become apparent to lots of users here. Anyway, what kind of people do you think are likely to end up banned early? Alt accounts, someone posting forbidden content (Porn, ROMs, etc) a couple times in a short time span time and people who disregard the staff's warning because if they're not listening, they're just going to keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again so what's the point of delaying something so obviously inevitable?

The assumption I made (which is not unreasonable, and is from precedent) was that the only way to get banned with less than 100% Porn was to do something illegal/insanely disruptive (ie. alts, porn, etc). I actually thought that the rule was just in for those cases. I have not seen people banned for disregarding the staff's warnings (well, maybe Blacken, and let's not even go near that). Besides, disobeying the staff's warnings should mean they get 100% Warn pretty soon anyway, why worry about banning them earlier? You can SUSPEND them, and usually that'll sober'em up. Or are you worried they'll try to "game the system"? Honestly, I thought "gaming the system" was part of the whole system.

I always regarded things you get warned for as bad behavior that was forgivable. Essentially, you had a certain amount of it you could commit per X time period. This makes perfect sense to me, as all the things you just get warned for tend to be fairly basic, and on a grand scale, not particularly important. I can see that under this new rule set, this is not how the staff feels at all, but the old rules could easily be innocently interpreted differently. Point is, from reading the rules, I never would have guessed it would be possible to ban people like Hika was banned. Again, 14 Warns in over 2 years is not many warns, really, especially considering his post volume. I really had no idea why he was banned before it was explained. I actually tried to figure it out, because if there was an actual good reason I probably wouldn't argue (I disagreed with OxRs ban, but didn't argue because he got 100% Warn, and I knew that was an auto ban), but it never would have occurred to me that this situation could take place.

Now, some may think that Hika didn't disregard the staff's warnings and some may think he did, so be it. From where I'm standing though, it seems more like he did disregard the staff's warnings.

Yes and no. If you had said "We'll ban you if you keep doing this", he'd probably have stopped. He didn't expect to be banned.

When people think they've been wrongly warned about something, they voice their disagreement, whether they're arrogant or not and I sometimes get complaints from users about their warns because it isn't clear enough to them. According to Hika, he didn't understand some of the warns Shuuda gave him and thought they were wrong. Thing is, he didn't dispute this until AFTER his ban and since he didn't do so during the time he wasn't banned, the only conclusions to be drawn from this is that he either understood why he was warned and had no objections or that he simply didn't give a damn. We can't read minds so there's no way we could tell that he didn't understand some of his warns unless he said so and he didn't.

He didn't question the warns (well, he actually might have, he did kind of complain about them a bit to me) because he didn't expect to be banned.

Same goes for his name changes, he knows that he's been previously warned for some of them before and by making this name change without asking anyone of the stuff whether or not it would be okay, this mostly suggest the he's once again disregarding the staff's warning and doesn't care, giving little to no reason for any objection to the thought of him having no intention to follow the rules.

Except he was using the name to make a point and try to poke fun at the rule/his prior warnings, as far as I can tell.

After the ban is when he finally voices his disagreements... how is this different from your typical situation in which someone insults another and then says he was joking after the consequence?

I've explained up there, but it's basically because he was banned. There are a lot of things in life that displease me, but I don't bitch about them, because there's no point. I think members like Crash are pretty terrible members, but I don't go around bitching about it. However, if, say Crash was being made a mod, you bet I would bitch. You pick your battles.

Also, I don't necessarily think there should be consequences for insulting someone.

ignore rule y first time. punishment = x.

ignore rule y again after previously getting x because of ignoring it once. Why should the punishment be the same the second time? That doesn't actually make sense to me. We tell you not to do something, either don't do it again or make a ticket saying why you should be allowed.

It's not inconsistent for punishment 1 to be different from punishment 2.

Firstly, this is not fully how I understood the rules to be, but regardless of that, it's inconsistent because the member doesn't necessarily have any knowledge of the increased consequences. This thread has honestly been a bit of an eye opener for me on staff policy, because very little of this was particularly clear from the previous rules and the precedent set.

Exactly. Like speedwagon said, too. I agreed with the decision because it seemed to me that there was a clear message from his actions that he had no intention of following the rules.

Like how every post he made was trolling and degradation and breaking the rules. Oh wait. He didn't follow SPECIFIC rules, on a relatively small number of occasions, and a lot of those occasions were basically him disagreeing with the staff. I don't think the message was clear at all.

And I don't dislike him, anyway. I'm indifferent (like speedwagon said). I am mostly on the fire emblem forums, not fftf. I don't see him much. I have no personal bias for or against him. He's just another person I don't know. Well, aside from having to look through reports on things he's said or other people have said and looking back through the thread to see what prompted it.

Which would give you a biased impression of him. If you only know about him through REPORTS OF HIS BAD BEHAVIOUR, you may have a bias towards him.

like others have said, crash. In the topic Hika created. The topic that is basically pointing a wild animal with a stick and his reaction to the ban like surprise he got attacked. Maybe I shouldn't call myself and other staff members wild animals, but the point stands.

Crash gets offended by the existence of people who aren't exactly like him, so yeah. He's not poking a wild animal either, the staff should be able to handle a mocking joke thrown at them. And that is what the topic WAS. Perhaps the name change was something else, but that is ALL the topic was. I would be surprised if the staff jumped all over me for a joke. I mean really, it was a FFtF topic. By Hika. Do you really think he was saying that he was unstoppable master of Serenes Forest? Or anything similar?

"Yeah, I got warned for this before. But you know what? I'm not going to stop. Then I'm going to throw down a challenge." Um, NO.

"I think this is silly, let's make fun of it." is far more accurate, and lots of members do that, just not with the staff.

EDIT: To clarify my stuff about warns, etc. I honestly though that gaming warns (ie. waiting until your previous warns had worn down before breaking the rules again) was acceptable. I consciously did it. I made no secret of it.

EDIT2: Forgive me for slight incoherency if there is any, I really should be in bed.

Edited June 2, 2010 by ZXValaRevan

[Dr. Tarrasque]

I have not seen people banned for disregarding the staff's warnings (well, maybe Blacken, and let's not even go near that).

IIRC, Jarly. His warn level is 40%.

Except he was using the name to make a point and try to poke fun at the rule/his prior warnings, as far as I can tell.

Doing so publicly, which is against:

• Avoid publicly questioning us on policies. We will listen to a well reasoned opinion on why policies should be different, but this needs to be done through PM or the ticket system, preferably the latter if available.

Edited June 2, 2010 by Speedwagon

[Defeatist Elitist]

IIRC, Jarly. His warn level is 40%.

Doing so publicly, which is against:

True, but I hate that rule. But hey, can't fault you there. You're right. That's still just a warn though.

I though Jarly reached 100% Warn? Either way, he did shit way longer, more often, and worse than Hika, so yeah... And recently I'm wondering if I would even want Jarly banned, but I'm not even going to talk about that because that's completely based on my preferences.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

He didn't question the warns (well, he actually might have, he did kind of complain about them a bit to me) because he didn't expect to be banned.

That's his fault. The announcement Narga had linked to already stated that a ban doesn't need 100% to happen and considering all the suspensions Hika's had, it'd be common sense to at least consider the possibility or voice disagreement of the warns he found wrong. Again, we're not psychics, we can't tell what someone thinks of the warns given to them unless they voice their opinion, Hika never did and the only thing that tells us is that he didn't care, after all we couldn't read his mind to see if he did...

Yes and no. If you had said "We'll ban you if you keep doing this", he'd probably have stopped. He didn't expect to be banned.

... That's what the warnings are for and Hika isn't unfamiliar with early bans.

I've explained up there, but it's basically because he was banned. There are a lot of things in life that displease me, but I don't bitch about them, because there's no point. I think members like Crash are pretty terrible members, but I don't go around bitching about it. However, if, say Crash was being made a mod, you bet I would bitch. You pick your battles.

I've already explained that it was not just Crash and commented on how Crash's reports are handled. We don't blindly warn what he report or anyone reports, there was a discussion and no action was taken until 3 days later.

[Narga_Rocks]

The assumption I made (which is not unreasonable, and is from precedent) was that the only way to get banned with less than 100% Porn was to do something illegal/insanely disruptive (ie. alts, porn, etc). I actually thought that the rule was just in for those cases. I have not seen people banned for disregarding the staff's warnings (well, maybe Blacken, and let's not even go near that). Besides, disobeying the staff's warnings should mean they get 100% Warn pretty soon anyway, why worry about banning them earlier? You can SUSPEND them, and usually that'll sober'em up. Or are you worried they'll try to "game the system"? Honestly, I thought "gaming the system" was part of the whole system.

We banned turbobrat loooooong before 100%. Why is nobody complaining about that? Now, sure, everyone is fairly certain it's an alt of some previously banned member I never knew, but we couldn't be sure of that when we banned him. And he didn't do this porn/illegal/whatever stuff. Granted, he was certainly more disruptive than most of what I've seen from hika, but the point stands that it seems an accepted fact that people can get banned while under 100%.

I always regarded things you get warned for as bad behavior that was forgivable. Essentially, you had a certain amount of it you could commit per X time period. This makes perfect sense to me, as all the things you just get warned for tend to be fairly basic, and on a grand scale, not particularly important. I can see that under this new rule set, this is not how the staff feels at all, but the old rules could easily be innocently interpreted differently. Point is, from reading the rules, I never would have guessed it would be possible to ban people like Hika was banned. Again, 14 Warns in over 2 years is not many warns, really, especially considering his post volume. I really had no idea why he was banned before it was explained. I actually tried to figure it out, because if there was an actual good reason I probably wouldn't argue (I disagreed with OxRs ban, but didn't argue because he got 100% Warn, and I knew that was an auto ban), but it never would have occurred to me that this situation could take place.

I don't understand this viewpoint. The rules are there because they are things you aren't supposed to do. It isn't stuff you can violate in moderation as long as you are careful not to do it every day.

http://fegenesis.shaym.in/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=101#p819

This post is actually pretty good. Only applicable portion is the first paragraph of the response (and somewhat relevant is what he is responding to).

Yes and no. If you had said "We'll ban you if you keep doing this", he'd probably have stopped. He didn't expect to be banned.

um, see above? Why should we go around saying "we will ban you if you ..." rather than saying "don't do ...".

He didn't question the warns (well, he actually might have, he did kind of complain about them a bit to me) because he didn't expect to be banned.

so, they aren't worthy of questioning until he gets banned in part because of the history? They are either worthy of questioning or they aren't.

Except he was using the name to make a point and try to poke fun at the rule/his prior warnings, as far as I can tell.

Right, like the warning about the same exact thing? Apparently "not learning how to follow rules" is now defined as "poking fun". If he wants to make a point, how about making a ticket? Ticket: "We should be able to say offensive things whenever we want". Answer: "lolno". Then he knows not to.

Firstly, this is not fully how I understood the rules to be, but regardless of that, it's inconsistent because the member doesn't necessarily have any knowledge of the increased consequences. This thread has honestly been a bit of an eye opener for me on staff policy, because very little of this was particularly clear from the previous rules and the precedent set.

so, maybe Jyo was right and all those "please"s in the previous rules made us look like pushovers and made the rules look like "suggestions"? What else were they there for? Consistently breaking the same rule is a problem. Randomly breaking things because you aren't clear on what is an isn't acceptable is one thing. If you are trying but certain rules get broken because you don't know any better that's one thing. But this?

(edit: I should say, the "look like suggestions" suggestion was all me)

Like how every post he made was trolling and degradation and breaking the rules.

When did I say this?

Oh wait. He didn't follow SPECIFIC rules, on a relatively small number of occasions, and a lot of those occasions were basically him disagreeing with the staff. I don't think the message was clear at all.

You know, there is a ticket system for disagreeing with the staff. We even have a rule about not doing that out on the forums. Oh look, another rule broken. It's a pretty clear message: you can't tell me what I can't do. I'll do what I please.

Which would give you a biased impression of him. If you only know about him through REPORTS OF HIS BAD BEHAVIOUR, you may have a bias towards him.

Not just his. Others. Like, say, person A makes a report about person B. person C caused person B to do the dumb thing. Hika is innocent bystander whose post I happen to read as I'm scrolling back through it. If anything I'd have seen more "okay" posts by him than not okay posts.

Crash gets offended by the existence of people who aren't exactly like him, so yeah. He's not poking a wild animal either, the staff should be able to handle a mocking joke thrown at them. And that is what the topic WAS. Perhaps the name change was something else, but that is ALL the topic was. I would be surprised if the staff jumped all over me for a joke. I mean really, it was a FFtF topic. By Hika. Do you really think he was saying that he was unstoppable master of Serenes Forest? Or anything similar?

unstoppable master? Maybe not. But he's certainly saying that he'll do his own thing no matter what rules we've set up. That's a problem. Why else would we have rules?

"I think this is silly, let's make fun of it." is far more accurate, and lots of members do that, just not with the staff.

There isn't a rule against doing that to other members.

EDIT: To clarify my stuff about warns, etc. I honestly though that gaming warns (ie. waiting until your previous warns had worn down before breaking the rules again) was acceptable. I consciously did it. I made no secret of it.

EDIT2: Forgive me for slight incoherency if there is any, I really should be in bed.

It's a list of stuff you aren't supposed to do. How could it be interpreted at as list of things you aren't supposed to do more than once a month. Where did it say "don't violate these rules more than once a month". I never noticed a rule like that.

And even if you hate that rule (about not questioning the staff), one of your disagreements with it was already disproven. You complained about transparency, but the ticket system is (mostly) visible to members. Maybe it's a tad inconvenient that you can't complain in the thread in which we warn you? Um, oh well? It can't be that difficult to make a few extra clicks.

Edited June 2, 2010 by Narga_Rocks

[Defeatist Elitist]

That's his fault. The announcement Narga had linked to already stated that a ban doesn't need 100% to happen and considering all the suspensions Hika's had, it'd be common sense to at least consider the possibility or voice disagreement of the warns he found wrong. Again, we're not psychics, we can't tell what someone thinks of the warns given to them unless they voice their opinion, Hika never did and the only thing that tells us is that he didn't care, after all we couldn't read his mind to see if he did...

... That's what the warnings are for and Hika isn't unfamiliar with early bans.

I've already explained that it was not just Crash and commented on how Crash's reports are handled. We don't blindly warn what he report or anyone reports, there was a discussion and no action was taken until 3 days later.

You seem to have misunderstood. That bit about Crash was me explaining why Hika probably didn't complain so much earlier.

[Florete]

The assumption I made (which is not unreasonable, and is from precedent) was that the only way to get banned with less than 100% Porn was to do something illegal/insanely disruptive (ie. alts, porn, etc).

Is that intentional or a very interesting typo?

http://fegenesis.shaym.in/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=101#p819

This post is actually pretty good. Only applicable portion is the first paragraph of the response (and somewhat relevant is what he is responding to).

I'm only getting the topic itself from that, so, assuming the same thing happens to others, here is the relevant part:

Anyway, apparently having an alt is ban-worthy, yet the rules at serenesforest don't have a single thing about it. You know, if mass trolling or flaming barely gives you a warn, the fact that having an alt is grounds for an auto ban would be a GOOD IDEA TO PUT THAT IN THE RULES. Otherwise, it looks like the mods just use the alt excuse to ban someone they don't like.

That's not a "good idea". Why would they encourage people to game the rules? This isn't Blackjack, you don't win by getting your Warn bar as close to 100% as possible without going over. The rules are a list of shit you're not supposed to do.

By your own admission, they cut you some slack: it wasn't an auto-ban this time. So, it was very intelligent of you to spit in the face of whomever came to your defense by squandering the Nth chance you were given to behave with, doing whatever dumbshit thing you did to earn your final GTFO.

Edited June 2, 2010 by Red Fox of Fire

[Dr. Tarrasque]

You seem to have misunderstood. That bit about Crash was me explaining why Hika probably didn't complain so much earlier.

Right, forgot to answer about that.

Speaking of Hika complaining during the time he wasn't banned, I remember he made a topic in which posted a picture to troll and complain about Shuuda, I set the topic invisible and then he proceeded to put that picture in his "about me" page. So he was perfectly fine with complaining about Shuuda so long as it had trolling material involved but not doing so as he should've through the ticket system...

EDIT: Btw I had forgotten to warn him about that. Don't know if Shuuda did.

Edited June 2, 2010 by Speedwagon

[Narga_Rocks]

I'm only getting the topic itself from that, so, assuming the same thing happens to others, here is the relevant part:

Thanks. I got the post when I clicked the link, so I don't know what happens with that and wouldn't have known others had issues. Either browser differences or if I'm logged in and you aren't or something.

Did you guess which post I meant or did you check the post numbers to determine which one?

[Florete]

Did you guess which post I meant or did you check the post numbers to determine which one?

Educated guess. You've linked to there before and it was entirely relevant to what you were trying to say, so I didn't think it could be any other.

[Rodykitty]

When are you guys going to unban Jarly?

[Dr. Tarrasque]

When are you guys going to unban Jarly?

When Alm meets Ike.

[Rodykitty]

We should get Jarly to write a fiction about such an event.