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

[Defeatist Elitist]

Posting for Hika, then heading off to bed, will respond myself tomorrow (probably).

TYPING IN CAPS TOTALLY GETS MY POINT ACROSS WAY MORE EFFICIENTLY BECAUSE I THINK YOU TOTALLY CAN'T READ. Or do you think we may miss something?

You will miss everything

Not that it's much of a point. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what's meant to be construed as offensive, and I'm not stupid enough to believe you were stupid enough to truly be oblivious to what you were doing.

Well apparently it does. I am that stupid, apparently. Or at least I don't really find anything offensive so there's no reason I would know what the hell other people find offensive. "HURR THIS SPECIFIC WORD (NIGGER) IS SOOOOO HORRIBLE (FOR SOME REASON), BANBANBAN" "HURR HIS NAME SAYS WHITE PEOPLE SUCK, BANBANBAN". I don't get it. Why the fuck should specific words or sentences about a group said jokingly piss people off so much? Why should I censor myself because everyone else is so dumb? You're right, it really fucking does take a rocket scientist to figure this shit out. YOU SEE CRYSTA, BULLSHIT ABOUT HOW HORRIBLE CERTAIN THINGS SUPPOSEDLY ARE HAVEN'T BEEN FORCED INTO MY BRAIN SINCE I WAS A DUMB KID, UNLIKE MOST PEOPLE. AND IT'S A GOOD THING TOO, I'D SAY, AND THE ONLY POSSIBLE DOWNSIDE IS THAT I DON'T EXACTLY GET PEOPLE. Also that I automatically decide anyone who gets offended by anything is retarded, but whatever. ALSO DON'T WORRY, I WON'T HAVE YOU TREAT ME SPECIAL BECAUSE YOU'RE ALL SPECIAL NEEDS KIDS. And besides, if someone gets offended that someone says something, doesn't that usually mean they realize it's true but don't want it to be true? Because I can't really see why you would get offended if it's an obvious lie/joke (at least if you were going out of your way to deny something you think is true it kinda makes sense I GUESS), or hell, especially if it's implying that the person doing it is not only a KNEE GAR, but that they're specifically a STUPID KNEE GAR. And hell, it's the same with RETARDED FAGGOT. "DURR THIS GUY IS SAYING THAT HE'S A STUPID NIGGER/THE FAGGOT OF DESTINY BANBANBAN (just make sure not to do anything if he names himself retarded faggot, that isn't really comparable in any conceivable way)" What the fuckkkkkkkkkkkkk

And before you berate me about this, ask yourself this: Have I ever acted in a way that would imply otherwise? (The answer is no, by the way, unless the way you percieve some things that I do or say is waaaaaaaay off) In fact, I'm pretty sure I've implied it quite heavily once when talking with Shuuda. But yeah, just because this is true doesn't mean I'm gonna expect you to treat me special or anything. You just implied something stupid. The opinion of a single person really doesn't matter unless they're REALLY good at shoving things so far up peoples' asses that it reaches their brain. Unless of course you're someone who was offended by something dumb, as you appear to imply in your post.

It just takes one person.

lol, before I start on this, I'd like to ask if this is only for the specific example or if it's for potentially offensive things in general, BECAUSE AFTER ALL, ANYTHING CAN OFFEND ANYONE

Just because white people here aren't hypersensitive douches, doesn't mean it's not obvious what you were doing, and doesn't mean we should start rationing punishment severity on the number of people actually offended by it. There's a difference between being unintentionally offensive (which shouldn't be punished) and being intentionally being a douche... does anyone want to seriously argue that you weren't clearly in the latter?

I was technically being a douche intentionally, but not to white people, I'M SORRY TO ALL THOSE WHITE PEOPLE WHO CUT THEIR WRISTS BECAUSE I SAID THEY SUCK. I was being a douche to the staff about the consistency thing, and really now? It's a lot worse to punish someone who doesn't offend anyone than it is to not punish someone who offends a shitload of people.

Also going back I'd like to talk about this

All the 'yeah but they did this with x and didn't do anything' doesn't really matter. It may show inconsistency on behalf of the current staff that should be addressed to prevent it from persisting, but what someone else did should carry no weight in determining if this decision was justified or not.

If they can fix consistency now they shouldn't wait until later.

How can someone NOT suspect that names like "White People Suck" and "Stupid Nigger" (correct me if that's not the exact name) just may violate ANY forum's rule set? I can't believe you would even want to name yourself something like that without the intention of being offensive.

As for Stupid Nigger, I didn't care whether or not it was offensive. I didn't really have a reason to, it didn't even cross my mind. I just felt like it. In fact, the only reason the first paragraph is in any way relevant to any of my name changes is 'White People suck' (I used stupid nigger and retarded faggot as examples because I just kinda felt like it, also it was relevant kinda) because that's the only one that I seriously stopped to think "Oh hey, will this get me warned for being offensive?" How the hell was I supposed to know that I'm supposed to expect people to get offended that goddamn easy? (Oh yeah, thinking about it now I was also warned for the name "That's gay shut up." DURR THE WORD GAY IS SO DISGUSTING EEW HOW HORRIBLE HOMOSEXUAL WORDS THAT AREN'T USED TO MEAN HOMOSEXUAL OFFEND ME lol)

I don't even care if the staff apparently failed at kicking your ass immediately lol (apparently it was under discussion or something -- I would have just warned/banned you outright myself). There's no way you're that stupid.

Who's the special needs kid around here again?

You're just upset that you didn't get away with it, plain and simple.

Just really, really butthurt.

Nah

Also, it's important to ask Hika what White People Suck at

Beating up black people (unless the white people in question are police, I suppose)

-----------The following part was written like 20 hours or something later-------------

Hika wasn't exactly 'Fishing for a response' so much as 'walking the line.' According to them and him, he was only testing his limits. Not anywhere near the same thing and if they are truthful, he probably should be brought back.

Where did I say this? How does a dumb sarcastic thread about me predicting no one will get offended over the specific name in order to be a douche about consistency imply I was testing my limits?

'X sucks' is almost an invitation for someone to be offended. He thought wrong, apparently, but I'm not sure if I actually buy this explanation anyway.

Maybe I should've learned my lesson after getting 40% warn for telling Vincent that he sucks like over 2 years ago huh 8[

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.

Heh. You don't quite get me. I'm rather stupid (as in painfully optimistic). I didn't think I would be banned, and a week or two of suspension isn't that big of a deal to actually think about whether or not I deserved that or whatever.

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.

I wasn't suspended for naming myself Stupid Nigger. I was suspended for being a "DWAMA HO". I got a warning for naming myself Stupid Nigger, and the step up from that is a suspension.

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.

Well, the point is that you should have suspended me in the first place instead of waiting. It really isn't that smart to hold off on suspending someone because you're discussing whether or not to ban them durr.

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

And that's your fault huh

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

I don't think I've ever been banned from a website so I have no idea what you're talking about 8E

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?

What. How do you

what.

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...

I wasn't trying to troll, I was doing it by request of OxR, he had given it to me months beforehand, if I wanted to use it to troll I would've done it long LONG ago. Before you ask, no that doesn't make it alright or whatever, but just clarifying that I wasn't attempting to troll. Also he asked me in a live chat and I can't say no to people when they ask me stuff in live chats and it requires no effort 8[ Abuse that if you feel like it

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

I wasn't warned for it, which is why I put it on my about me page. My about me page was huge anyways and no one would have even stopped to look at it

[Dr. Tarrasque]

I wasn't warned for it, which is why I put it on my about me page. My about me page was huge anyways and no one would have even stopped to look at it

But you knew damn well that it was set invisible. It's similar to changing your avatar, sig or post back after a mod has edited which is also against the rules. People did.

I was technically being a douche intentionally, but not to white people, I'M SORRY TO ALL THOSE WHITE PEOPLE WHO CUT THEIR WRISTS BECAUSE I SAID THEY SUCK. I was being a douche to the staff about the consistency thing, and really now? It's a lot worse to punish someone who doesn't offend anyone than it is to not punish someone who offends a shitload of people.

Again, there's the ticket system and PMing the admins if you want to say something to the staff. Doing that shit only serves to prove the thought that you have no intention of following the rules.

Edited June 2, 2010 by Speedwagon

[Narga_Rocks]

If they can fix consistency now they shouldn't wait until later.

But that doesn't actually affect the point about whether or not banning you is legitimate.

I wasn't suspended for naming myself Stupid Nigger. I was suspended for being a "DWAMA HO". I got a warning for naming myself Stupid Nigger, and the step up from that is a suspension.

Where does it say there needs to be a single step? Besides, it's not like you were banned solely for the name change.

Well, the point is that you should have suspended me in the first place instead of waiting. It really isn't that smart to hold off on suspending someone because you're discussing whether or not to ban them durr.

Okay??? so now there's a complaint that you got more time to post? You got an extra 3 days. Also, my main point was ~3 days does not equal a week.

I don't think I've ever been banned from a website so I have no idea what you're talking about 8E

You've been here for a long time and one would assume you have observation skills? I believe the implication was that the possibility of a ban before 100% is not an alien concept to you because you've seen others get banned "early".

What. How do you

what.

Nice explanation about how my interpretation is illegitimate. I particularly liked this part

which was definitely your best argument.

Would you like a review?

you got warned not to make these types of names.

you kept doing it.

you made a topic broadcasting this fact along with your intent to continue.

How is my interpretation not the most logical conclusion? We have rules, you didn't follow them. Not only did you not follow them, you made a huge deal out of your intent to continue to not follow them. Okay, you followed some of them. But we didn't make a statement at the top of the rule list saying "choose your favourite x-1 out of x rules to follow and get free reign over the remaining one".

Hence you'll do your own thing and screw the rules (at least, certain ones). "You can not stop me now mods. You can not stop me now "

[Florete]

Hence you'll do your own thing and screw the rules (at least, certain ones).

[Dr. Tarrasque]

Linus does not approve the lack of green hair on Kaiba.

[Mikethfc]

"You can not stop me now mods. You can not stop me now "

Oh yeah because Hika was being completely serious when he said that and it wasn't just a joke.

Also going back to the offensive name change argument based on the amount of people who said they weren't offended by it don't you think its slightly possible that Hika thought the same.

And considering some of the mods didn't know Hika they probably didn't know that it was a mix between naivety and optimism that stopped him from complaining against the warns to the mods even I can see that and I barely knew Hika.

[Aleph]

It looks like Hika's not picking the best words for his side of the argument; neither did whoever said "a mod banned Hika" because if that last explanation I received is actually what happened, it would be entirely incorrect to say "a mod banned Hika" - suspended until an admin could, maybe, but not banned. If a name was the issue and not out of control spam'ing, though, suspension seems like it was unnecessary. In any case, I'm not a fan of any such decision being made by a single person (not saying that it was, though, but it sounded like it had been). If there isn't another staff member around and it's bad enough, sure, but that just sounds like under-staffing.

Also, regardless of how negatively the above appears for Hika's side, I've also seen a lot about the gist of what Hika did as a member here. I don't know about him being unbanned here, but he'd be great over at FEU. He has the perfect mindset and nothing is better than a staff kept in check, just like how nothing is worse than a staff that isn't consistent. If one of Hika's goals as a poster was to keep the staff on their toes in about following their own rules then I hope I run into him everywhere.

And I hope Death comes back and saves FEU before it melts into mundane putty

...why can I see my post count

Edited June 2, 2010 by Xeld

[Malexis]

You can see your post-count because upgrading removed whatever Josh did to remove post-counts?

Also @ Hika: Okay, sorry. You're right--you never said that. I was mistaken.

[Narga_Rocks]

It looks like Hika's not picking the best words for his side of the argument; neither did whoever said "a mod banned Hika" because if that last explanation I received is actually what happened, it would be entirely incorrect to say "a mod banned Hika" - suspended until an admin could, maybe, but not banned.

We actually have a checkbox that literally says "ban indefinitely". I don't see how there's an issue with me saying a mod banned Hika. The thing is that doing that won't place a user into the banned "group" so it doesn't say exiled or whatever else happens when an admin moves that user into the other group. It's still quite literally banning.

In any case, I'm not a fan of any such decision being made by a single person (not saying that it was, though, but it sounded like it had been). If there isn't another staff member around and it's bad enough, sure, but that just sounds like under-staffing.

What the hell? Did you even read my post thoroughly? Go over it again. Think this time. I'm not going to bother pulling the relevant quotes from my post because it should be glaringly obvious which ones are relevant. I will say that all 4 of the global mods weighed in on this decision. Why else would it take us over 72 hours to ban him?

[Life]

I have to toss in a little thing, so sorry. And this isn't directed at any of the mods (hell, I even like some of them) but it's just a shot at most mods on forums.

My experiences with mods on a forum (GameFAQs is really the first example that comes to mind but not the only one) in the past all involved a circle of "suck-up", as I like to call it. Since all of them always want to be in the good graces of the person who runs the site, they'll always agree with each other when someone publicly (or even privately in my case) brings up a hole in the rules and exploits it/uses it to show why X reason is wrong.

Now I'm not saying that Speed or Narga are like that in this case but one of my personal experiences involves me getting a week-long suspension for something that was not touched in the rules. I explained my case to people that I knew and all of them said that I had a very good case for myself since there was a giant hole in the rules and a mod had taken it upon himself to apply the punishment to me. When I brought it up to him, he quickly threw my case aside on the grounds that I may be right but he couldn't care less since he held the power of God Almighty in his massive throbbing e-cock. And when I brought it up to his superior, I basically got the exact same answer and an even longer suspension (way to go, GameFAQs!).

So yeah. The whole point of that story is for me to ask any mods listening (Narga, this really means you since I'm interested in your answer), "when does the circle jerk of one mod agreeing with another's decision stop, even in the face of proper logic?". I'm not saying that Revan is right in this case (since he's not but it's quite entertaining) but it's more of a "what if you guys are wrong in the future with another case" question.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

So yeah. The whole point of that story is for me to ask any mods listening (Narga, this really means you since I'm interested in your answer), "when does the circle jerk of one mod agreeing with another's decision stop, even in the face of proper logic?". I'm not saying that Revan is right in this case (since he's not but it's quite entertaining) but it's more of a "what if you guys are wrong in the future with another case" question.

When it's actually there. I can't speak for others throughout the net because yes, there are corrupt mods and admins out there, it'd be stupid to say there isn't. As I already explained, Hika never gave us any reason to disagree with the thought that he knows he's breaking the rules and didn't give a damn until he got banned (if anything, he provided evidence to it). I didn't block him from contacting me through IM which he got through some of his buddy list and I even posted the chatlog on the staff board for the others to look at. We try to avoid making biased decisions.

Now he's basically claiming that he's stupid and never considered the possibility. Uh, how is this any different from someone feigning ignorance and bullshitting some convenient excuses to attempt to disprove the arguments? How's it logical to NOT dispute his warns and the several suspensions while he was unbanned and in addition NOT consider the possibility of an early ban when apparently he was perfectly fine with trying to argue an inconsistency in a manner he knows is incorrect and would result in a warn?

I've seen some users here get warned for the same thing several times but after one or more suspensions they've completely stopped or at least tried questioning why the suspension and warnings have been happening. Hika kept at it and never tried to dispute the warnings until after the ban.

Edited June 2, 2010 by Speedwagon

[Narga_Rocks]

I have to toss in a little thing, so sorry. And this isn't directed at any of the mods (hell, I even like some of them) but it's just a shot at most mods on forums.

My experiences with mods on a forum (GameFAQs is really the first example that comes to mind but not the only one) in the past all involved a circle of "suck-up", as I like to call it. Since all of them always want to be in the good graces of the person who runs the site, they'll always agree with each other when someone publicly (or even privately in my case) brings up a hole in the rules and exploits it/uses it to show why X reason is wrong.

Now I'm not saying that Speed or Narga are like that in this case but one of my personal experiences involves me getting a week-long suspension for something that was not touched in the rules. I explained my case to people that I knew and all of them said that I had a very good case for myself since there was a giant hole in the rules and a mod had taken it upon himself to apply the punishment to me. When I brought it up to him, he quickly threw my case aside on the grounds that I may be right but he couldn't care less since he held the power of God Almighty in his massive throbbing e-cock. And when I brought it up to his superior, I basically got the exact same answer and an even longer suspension (way to go, GameFAQs!).

Wow. I'm glad I rarely post on GameFAQs.

So yeah. The whole point of that story is for me to ask any mods listening (Narga, this really means you since I'm interested in your answer), "when does the circle jerk of one mod agreeing with another's decision stop, even in the face of proper logic?". I'm not saying that Revan is right in this case (since he's not but it's quite entertaining) but it's more of a "what if you guys are wrong in the future with another case" question.

Um, all 4 mods agreed with the ban (technically we said "no objections", which is tacit agreement). We did this before the ban came. If even one of us had any issues with the idea, we would have spoken. Or at least, I would have spoken. I assume the others would, too. We talk about things before doing major stuff. I have no idea whether or not the gamefaqs mods debate their decisions among each other before doing stuff. We almost always do for anything remotely debatable. Even with silly things that are almost obviously warnable or not warnable, there are times we say "so hey, I think that this report is frivolous, all agreed?" or "yeah, I want to warn for this" before doing anything like closing a report or warning a member. When it's glaringly obvious and just a warn we'll do it on our own, but if we think there is even a chance we are being too soft/hard, we talk.

Also, if I had objected but got overruled by enough mods and admins, I'd say "I support the decision to ban under our decison-making rules, though personally I was against it". Or something like that. Well, depending on what it is. In special cases I may avoid saying what I personally voted and just say "We followed the process we defined in the announcements for banning and the decision to ban was made".

[Aleph]

What the hell? Did you even read my post thoroughly?

I did clearly state things in the past tense.

This isn't exactly a fun thread but there's no need for hostility, intended or otherwise.

[Zkirsche]

Was he actually warned that if he continued his behaviour he'd get banned or was it out of the blue banning for doing the same thing? People will obviously be more careful at 90% warn than at 40% warn. If he wasn't then this is hardly fair.

I never really saw him as a threat to this "harmony" this forum has in the first place. Merely jokin around, having a laugh. I believe it says in the code of conduct "the internet is not serious business", so why are you guys treating these name changes so seriously. Now, my friends go as far to call me extremist catholic and even I laughed at "God" being his username. It's not insulting, more like teasing, which I do not think warrants a ban. When I think of people who have seriously tried to disrupt this forum (Jarly, destiny hero), I think "serves them right". When I think of Hika, I think "lol". Nothing he ever did was really worth more than a small warning IMO, if that, the guy ranks with Luminothe for sheer lolworthiness.

Also, 1 warn almost every 2 months is really quite small. But why is it more important if he breaks the same rule than 14 different rules? Why is one rule suddenly amplified in the case of one person. Different people have different ways of joking around, Hika makes his points through name changing, some make similar jokes but in post format. The funny thing is, people have directly insulted religion and claimed it has ruined humanity perfectly seriously without punishment but when it is implied half-jokingly it is suddenly worth being attributed to a ban.

Now, my two cents are normally unwanted on these kinds of threads, but here they are anyway.

And P.S. Hika, try being nicer to them. Having an extremely harsh tone doesn't help your argument, I may try to simply read the points being made, and not how they're being said, but many people don't for some reason ;).

Edit: Thinking about it, you might as well ban Bizz for spamming by saying "hi". he's only joking around and certainly doesn't deserve being banned.

Also, if Hika was really such a pest for the memebers of SF, then there'd be discussions on Hiak being dropped from his top tier position, in fact if he wasn't respected then he wouldn't even have been placed in top tier in teh first place. Perhaps you admins should take a good look at the populace: we all like Hikarusa and this place will probably be worse without him.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Kirsche

[Dr. Tarrasque]

Edit: Thinking about it, you might as well ban Bizz for spamming by saying "hi". he's only joking around and certainly doesn't deserve being banned.

Sure, we should totally ban someone for doing what she's never been told not to do before and has no warns or maybe 1 or 2 verbal warns. Makes perfect sense.

Sarcasm if it wasn't obvious enough.

Also, if Hika was really such a pest for the memebers of SF, then there'd be discussions on Hiak being dropped from his top tier position, in fact if he wasn't respected then he wouldn't even have been placed in top tier in teh first place. Perhaps you admins should take a good look at the populace: we all like Hikarusa and this place will probably be worse without him.

So, we should unban Hika because people like him and become like the mods in Life's example. AKA overturn a decision out of bias basically be yet another set of corrupt mods who put absolutely no effort in avoiding biased decisions and recommending bans of people we dislike, which is shit people have complained about because they believe we're like that despite the proof we've presented that this isn't the case.

Also, keep in mind that the number of warns you people have been informed of does not include verbal warns which may have been handled differently than how it is now as in, the previous mods might've limited their verbal warnings to PMs so there's a good chance there's lots of those. then there's 3 months loss of data.

Finally, he's been warned many times for trolling so he's not exactly a saint like someone of you see him as. Every forum has some people that troll members there but are liked among the community due to being friends or not being a target and finding it amusing.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Speedwagon

[Life]

So, we should unban Hika because people like him and become like the mods in Life's example. AKA overturn a decision out of bias basically be yet another set of corrupt mods who put absolutely no effort in avoiding biased decisions and recommending bans of people we dislike, which is shit people have complained about because they believe we're like that despite the proof we've presented that this isn't the case.

Somehow, I think you've twisted the example that I've used into something else. When you don't do something, you stay neutral (in my eyes). Plus, from what I've gathered, it doesn't seem like Hika was intentionally trying to hurt someone aside from poke some fun at the rules. If he is entertaining and not doing too much damage (in his example), why not keep him around for laughs and then kick him out when he does something really stupid (as in intentionally try to hurt people).

[Rodykitty]

I would consider repeatedly going against a moderator's request an action that hurts moderators, which, believe it or not, happen to be human beings with thoughts and feelings.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Super FE3 Player

[Dr. Tarrasque]

Somehow, I think you've twisted the example that I've used into something else.When you don't do something, you stay neutral (in my eyes).

As in, examples of what mods shouldn't be.

Plus, from what I've gathered, it doesn't seem like Hika was intentionally trying to hurt someone aside from poke some fun at the rules. If he is entertaining and not doing too much damage (in his example), why not keep him around for laughs and then kick him out when he does something really stupid (as in intentionally try to hurt people).

We're not banning users for what we think of them. We're banning for what's present at the time the ban is decided and in Hika's case, it was a user that kept breaking the rules, disregarding the staff's warnings and showing no intention of stopping nor evidence of what he claims now. Early bans is not new to this forum.

I would consider repeatedly going against a moderator's request an action that hurts moderators, which, believe it or not, happen to be human beings with thoughts and feelings.

Lol.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Speedwagon

[Defeatist Elitist]

Another post from Hikarusa, possibly the final one.

But you knew damn well that it was set invisible. It's similar to changing your avatar, sig or post back after a mod has edited which is also against the rules. People did.

I wasn't saying that as a defense

Where does it say there needs to be a single step? Besides, it's not like you were banned solely for the name change.

I was banned for the name changes "God", "Destiny Faggot" (BUT NOT "RETARDED FAGGOT!), "that's gay shut up.", "Stupid Nigger", and "White People Suck". I was also banned for being a drama whore. The rest of my warns are all probably for flaming (It's not like even CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE STAFF go out of their way to avoid breaking this rule, and I've only had like 2 warnings and a verbal warning for this in the past year? I don't know, I'm not sure). Oh yeah, and I made a dumb spam thread in Serious Discussion about how horrible homosexuals are mocking CERTAIN GROUPS OF PEOPLE like over a year and a half ago, that was definitely the worst thing I did. But altogether? Is that really worth a ban?

Okay??? so now there's a complaint that you got more time to post? You got an extra 3 days. Also, my main point was ~3 days does not equal a week.

Sorry, I'm horrible with time

You've been here for a long time and one would assume you have observation skills? I believe the implication was that the possibility of a ban before 100% is not an alien concept to you because you've seen others get banned "early".

Well I didn't know anyone else has been banned "early".

As I already explained, Hika never gave us any reason to disagree with the thought that he knows he's breaking the rules and didn't give a damn until he got banned (if anything, he provided evidence to it).

Huh. I wish I could say something to respond to this. I still don't get how all those name changes are even all that offensive or whatever the hell. But you're right, I didn't care. I just accepted the week or two of suspension and didn't feel like thinking about it. I didn't realize at a glance (except drama whore but eeeeeh I didn't think that would end up being so important) so I just didn't think. Also I have A LOT less warns lately iirc.

Now he's basically claiming that he's stupid and never considered the possibility. Uh, how is this any different from someone feigning ignorance and bullshitting some convenient excuses to attempt to disprove the arguments? How's it logical to NOT dispute his warns and the several suspensions while he was unbanned and in addition NOT consider the possibility of an early ban when apparently he was perfectly fine with trying to argue an inconsistency in a manner he knows is incorrect and would result in a warn?

Heh, well, it's different because, please correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not), I haven't really acted in a way that would imply otherwise, have I?

but if we think there is even a chance we are being too soft/hard, we talk.

Oh, are you saying the drama whore suspension was a staff decision then? lol

Honestly now? I'm practically ready to concede at this point. This is really really retarded. If you guys think me getting warned twice in the past 6 months means I'm going out of my way to ignore the rules, fine. If you think me still having 2 warns from 6 months ago is me waiting until my warn decreases before going out of my way to break rules, then fine. If you think calling myself a 'Stupid Nigger', or 'THE FAGGOT OF DESTINIES' is horrible (BUT NOT RETARDED FAGGOT), then fine. If you think being a so called 'DWAMA HO' is worth a warn and suspension, have fun with all those warns and suspensions you'll be giving out. If you think 'WHITE PEOPLE SUCK' is so horrible then fucking fine. Ban people over subjective shit. If you think 14 warns in the span of 2 and a half years is so horrible? Go for it. You people have already decided and it's impossible to change your opinion, in fact, I'm perfeclty aware that that post was full of stuff that would work against me because I'm not gonna go out of my way to ignore what you say because it isn't very helpful for my side COUGH. However, if I didn't respond to something NOW, just assume I'm conceding that. Just note that if we do the reverse as well you'd have conceded more than me, I'd imagine.

By the way, a number of users put prejudicial comments in this very thread.

2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion

Meaning you're gonna have to warn everyone who blindly decided to side with you just because you're staff or because they don't like me, and everyone who sided with me just because I'm moe or because Jyo/Shuuda. Maybe a few suspensions or a ban on Crash especially for everything he's said in the past. Have fun with that.

Nothing he ever did was really worth more than a small warning IMO, if that, the guy ranks with Luminothe for sheer lolworthiness.

Luminothe was banned for making a bunch of threads about poop though

Edited June 3, 2010 by ZXValaRevan

[Mikethfc]

Another flaw with your consistency,is if flaming and trolling is so unnacceptable in the rules why did the "why does everybody say I'm attracted to Mist last almost 200 pages and was only locked not because of the bullying but because some pictures posted were NSFW

[Zkirsche]

Perhaps it is bias. But a decision to "early" ban someone is based upon nothing but opinion in that the banner, you mods, decide whether this straw is the last one. How is that decision made? You looked at his warn record, almost only 1 every two months, and thought to yourselves "this guy's a troublemaker with no respect for the rules or the members of the forum" and so you banned him.

The trouble is, you guys are some of the only people who think this, as this thread (and the tier list thread) clearly shows, which is my entire point. On the matter of "early" bans public opinion should indeed be taken into account, and it appears the public opinion is that hikarusa should not have been banned.

[Malexis]

As this topic goes on and on, it is beginning to sound... a lot... like a personal agenda. Given the examples the (very numerous) people who have been defending him have provided, it seems that the staff is either very biased or very flawed.

I especially like mikethfc's example, because, I read that thread... and he's so right... .

Don't get me wrong, though. I'm not by any means saying that the decision to ban Hikarusa was actually wrong... just that, if it was right, it seems he is one of the only things they've done right.

EDIT:

but if it's true that he only received 2 warns in the last 6 months (is it??), then a sudden perma-ban is pretty random...

Edited June 3, 2010 by 'Lexis

[Dr. Tarrasque]

Perhaps it is bias. But a decision to "early" ban someone is based upon nothing but opinion in that the banner, you mods, decide whether this straw is the last one. How is that decision made? You looked at his warn record, almost only 1 every two months, and thought to yourselves "this guy's a troublemaker with no respect for the rules or the members of the forum" and so you banned him.

... I've answered the question several times throughout this thread and that statement does not show that you actually read the reasoning before commenting (or you did but chose to ignore it). It's not because of the number of warns, it's because he keeps getting warned for the same shit he's been told multiple times not to do and never showed any intention of listening. We simply followed our guidelines, suspend or ban users who have repeatedly disregarded the staff and in the case of banning, discuss with the rest of the staff before doing anything which we did.

The trouble is, you guys are some of the only people who think this, as this thread (and the tier list thread) clearly shows, which is my entire point.

If a user is problematic, you can bring him/her to the attention of the staff and present your reasoning. We will listen to reasonable arguments and deal with it as we see appropriate. Thing is, nobody/hardly anyone ever does and some often decide to take matters into their hands by flaming or trolling, things they know they shouldn't be doing. Also, the tier list as proof in your argument? Really? Ever thought that the thing's not supposed to be taken seriously and doesn't account for input of many users?

On the matter of "early" bans public opinion should indeed be taken into account, and it appears the public opinion is that hikarusa should not have been banned.

Absolutely not. Doing so would make anyone who's popular immune while those that are generally disliked and aren't breaking any rules would inevitably end up banned due to several users ganging up on them and bait them into breaking the rules. In such an instance, public opinion would favor that this member is banned while those that baited the user would go without consequence since they may or may not get warned and if they do get warned it wouldn't mean a damn since the public would want them to stay every time a decision to ban them is considered. Basically making the forum one big popularity contest... terrible suggestion.

As already said:

If a user is problematic, you can bring him/her to the attention of the staff and present your reasoning. We will listen to reasonable arguments and deal with it as we see appropriate.

Luminothe was banned for making a bunch of threads about poop though

Threads he was told not make but still kept doing it. Similar to you with the name changes, difference being the time it took to repeat it.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Speedwagon

[Original Alear]

@Everyone:

Just admit it. You're glad Hika was banned because it gave us something to talk about. A sacrifice for the sake of the forum.

I am sad he's gone, but I'm sure he'll get over it so I'm not really that worried about it.

Also, I stopped reading this topic on page 9. Maybe I'll get to the rest later.

My only thought that no one else seems to have expressed is that it might have been nice for Hika if the ban system was slightly more transparent. Some of the smarter and "been around more" users seem to have figured it out, but I certainly never suspected such a thing.

For instance, having the "warn bar" that fills up to 100% implies for some that there is safety as long as it doesn't get to 100%. If there were clearer rules, some of us might not toe the line as much.

I used to think that mods/webmasters were actually robots with no sense of humor

They are robots. However, they are robots with senses of humor. That is why we love them.

I am a robot. Robots like to work. Let us sing songs of robots working.

As a moderator of another forum, I generally know how this goes.

1) Popular but problematic member gets banned for stupid reason -- mind you, a stupid reason because he decided to do be a cheeky bastard or something and didn't think he'd actually get in trouble this time

2) Supporters NERDRAEG

3) Moderators defend their decision in several raeg topics... along with every other decision they've made ever, because they usually become relevant (can't have biased mods!)

4) Nothing really changes, because it's fucking stupid

I liked Hika, but I can sympathize with the mods. I've went out of my way to tell members "hey don't do this again or I'll have to ban you and I don't wanna" and because THEY'RE JUST SO FUNNAY they go ahead and do it anyway. These mods probably didn't go that far, but I don't think they're even obligated to.

So I advise the staff not to sweat it. In fact, you should probably get used to it.

Stop encapsulating discussions with 100% accuracy and thus risking their destruction!!!

I've seen it before.

1: Intelligent member breaks into a lively discussion and captures exactly why it doesn't matter that much.

2: People become despondent.

3: People stop posting as much.

4: Discussion dies out.

5: ???

6: Profit!

It's a dumb way to go (if it had been me I would have gone out saying something truly insulting), but it was ultimately his choice.

Ah. Thanatos, the death urge. Eventually, as we see the little deaths of someone else we start thinking about what it would be like for US to die. (us can be us as in plural of I or as in United States, either works).

(Note that the rapidly playing metalic sounding instrument in the video clip below is called a saron, and is part of a gamelan ensemble, a set of beautiful indonesian instruments whose cycles are timed by gong notes. The word "gong" I believe actually comes from Indonesia.)

The funny thing is that a vast number of members take everything seriously, including in FFtF.

Kind of a downer.

Sometimes it's hard to tell :( Especially because sometimes people say they aren't being serious when they are.

[Fayt Zelpher]

I'll say one thing on the topic of 100% warn and leave the topic.

In case you guys haven't figured it out, this isn't The Price is Right. It's not a game of get as close to 100% as possible without going over. It's not an issue of 'let's be careful when you're at 90% but show reckless disregard for the rules when you're at 10% or 40%'. The way I see it, the rules are supposed to be followed.

The warn bar, I think (and I hope I'm not wrong here), has never been designed to be a system of points for buying moderations but instead as a way to let both you and the mods know that you've broken the rules, and to let you know be more careful about it in the future. No one's perfect, and I imagine that there are not many of us with perfect, unblemished 0% bars. Hence, when you keep trying to fill up the EXP bar, sooner or later, Le Banhammer is going to fall. Maybe not when you're technically at 100% or even 80%, but sooner or later, if you keep trying to play The Price is Right, you're going to lose.

Just my two cents.