All bulllshit aside (dug)

[Grizbr]

The site admin have the ability to do as they see fit.. I would suggest they consider the following in such cases. Set up a trial, Have a judge from admin. A moderator can act as prosecutor and the accused could act as his lawyer or get someone to represent him. The jury could be 11 random members from the general mambership who have a minimum number of games, say 50 so they have some experience at the site. It would not be very difficult to set this up. It sounds like this person was so very angery because he never felt he was heard. This would avoid that.

[qeee1]

oh my we miss the point...

The point must be somewhat obscure because I seem to have missed it too.

Forget 25%, they can't even get 16% (current result of their poll) to agree with them despite the poll having the most biased language I can imagine.

Maybe the point is not one that can logically and rationally discussed?

The poll asks if you agree with the mods 100%, it's a simple question. It doesn't ask do you mostly agree with what the mods did, and it doesn't suppose to give the answer to that question.

The point isn't that 80% of people are completely happy with the decision, it's that 20% aren't.

Could more people have been happy if a different course of action was taken. Probably...

[tahitiwahini]

The poll asks if you agree with the mods 100%, it's a simple question. It doesn't ask do you mostly agree with what the mods did, and it doesn't suppose to give the answer to that question.

The point isn't that 80% of people are completely happy with the decision, it's that 20% aren't.

Could more people have been happy if a different course of action was taken. Probably...

Actually the poll:

After reading this post how do you feel about dugs punishment?
Dug's punishment was fair I back the mods 100% on their decision 82% [ 112 ]
Dug's punishment was too harsh I can NOT back the mods 100% on their decision 17% [ 23 ]

does not ask a simple question. It asks a rather convoluted question as I've pointed out elsewhere in this thread.

Why the fact that 17% of the people are not completely 100% happy is a more significant fact than that 82% of the people are 100% happy is I confess something that completely mystifies me.

As for more people being happy if a different course of action were taken, I see absolutely no justification for believing that. In fact, quite the opposite is probably true, had the punishment been any more lenient the number of people dissatisfied with the mods' decision would increase rather than decrease. I know that's true in my case.

If 82% of the people agree with 100% of a decision I make, while 17% don't think I made 100% the right decision, then I think I'm correct in concluding that my decision was overwhelmingly popular, one might even say universally popular.

Now had the "100%" been removed from the poll, and had the two issues been considered separately as they would have been in an unbiased poll, we might be discussing different results. But as Molacole has yet to acknowledge that fatal flaw in his poll, we're unlikely to find out the answer to that question in this thread.

[qeee1]

The poll asks if you agree with the mods 100%, it's a simple question. It doesn't ask do you mostly agree with what the mods did, and it doesn't suppose to give the answer to that question.

The point isn't that 80% of people are completely happy with the decision, it's that 20% aren't.

Could more people have been happy if a different course of action was taken. Probably...

Actually the poll:

After reading this post how do you feel about dugs punishment?
Dug's punishment was fair I back the mods 100% on their decision 82% [ 112 ]
Dug's punishment was too harsh I can NOT back the mods 100% on their decision 17% [ 23 ]

does not ask a simple question. It asks a rather convoluted question as I've pointed out elsewhere in this thread.

It's manner of asking is slightly off, but I think everyone reads the poll-


After reading this post how do you feel about dugs punishment?
I back the mods 100% on their decision 82% [ 112 ]
I can NOT back the mods 100% on their decision 17% [ 23 ]

That's what I'm taking the result as. If you take into account the first part of the question, there would probably be a tendancy due to that to vote for the first option, so what I have posted above is what the poll says at the very least. At most it says.

Dug's punishment was fair 82% [ 112 ]
Dug's punishment was too harsh 17% [ 23 ]

In fact what it truly says lies somewhere between these two statements.

You're right though, it's not entirely simple, I shouldn't have said that.

Why the fact that 17% of the people are not completely 100% happy is a more significant fact than that 82% of the people are 100% happy is I confess something that completely mystifies me.

My point is that there are a signifigant proportion of people unhappy with the decision, if it were unavoidable it would be justified but it probably was avoidable, if a different course of action had been taken, say a warning before a banning.

Also there will be a tendancy to vote for the first option even if you don't really agree with it.

1) a large amount of people will agree with the mods in general
2) People are angry at the fact the issue has dragged on and vote 1) in protest.

As for more people being happy if a different course of action were taken, I see absolutely no justification for believing that. In fact, quite the opposite is probably true, had the punishment been any more lenient the number of people dissatisfied with the mods' decision would increase rather than decrease. I know that's true in my case.

I call bullshit. The majority of people wouldn't feel upset if dug had been warned and only banned if he persisted in creating those controversial games. Perhaps in your personal case, you would, but that's your personal case...

[Guilty_Biscuit]

You can't please everyone. From the results of the survey the action taken was exceptionally succesful.

[tahitiwahini]

Also there will be a tendancy to vote for the first option even if you don't really agree with it.

1) a large amount of people will agree with the mods in general
2) People are angry at the fact the issue has dragged on and vote 1) in protest.

I imagine a large amount of people do agree with the mods in general. However, it seems there's no particular disincentive to expressing disagreement with what the mods do. I don't think it would take much effort to find instances where the mods are challenged when their actions are felt to not be in the best interests of the site. Also, as the poll is a secret ballot there's no possible way for the mods to find out how a particular person voted. So while I take your point that a large amount of people agree with the mods in general I think that reflects more the fact that both the mods and the the people share a concern for the well-being of the site, than fear of intimidation or retaliation for going against the mods.

I accept your second point, but tend to think the actual number of people who would base their entire vote solely on that to be quite small despite widespread numbers who would undoubtedly share the underlying sentiment.

As for more people being happy if a different course of action were taken, I see absolutely no justification for believing that. In fact, quite the opposite is probably true, had the punishment been any more lenient the number of people dissatisfied with the mods' decision would increase rather than decrease. I know that's true in my case.

I call bullshit. The majority of people wouldn't feel upset if dug had been warned and only banned if he persisted in creating those controversial games. Perhaps in your personal case, you would, but that's your personal case...

That's something that's easily put to the test with another poll. If you're as convinced as you sound that the outcome would be favorable, you've only to construct the poll, sit back, and let the results come in proving you right.

As for Dug persisting in creating those "controversial" game, isn't his position that those fraudulent point-giveaway games were entirely legal. I've never heard him express any other opinion about those games. As far as I know, he's never expressed any regret or remorse for setting those games up, including the doubles games in which he helpfully not only gave away his own points but also those of his partner. To call Dug unrepentant is perhaps an understatement.

So a warning wherein someone is informed that what he is doing is wrong, is not likely to have much of an effect if the person doesn't believe what he is doing is wrong. The result would have been exactly the same except more innocent people involved in Dug's "controversial" games would have been harmed in the meantime while the warning process dragged on. To me that seems a large price to pay for little or no benefit since I think everyone can agree (as I'm sure would Dug) that a warning would have had absolutely no effect on Dug's behavior.

[Molacole]

You do realize that if someone thinks what the site administrators did was 99.99999% correct that they would have to vote No in your poll, right?

Again it's not agreeing if the way things were handled were right or wrong It was asking if his punishment was fair.

If you think his punishment was fair (not right or wrong) then of course you would agree with the mods 100%.

If you didn't think his punishment was fair then you couldn't agree with the mods.

The only thing you're right about is the fact the poll could've been constructed differently to be more precise. You're absolutely wrong when you say it's a biased poll though. You keep forgetting that the word FAIR is free from bias. Agreeing with the mods coincides with feeling he was treated fairly.

So your initial explination of right and wrong has nothing to do with fairness, but yet that is your explination you hold so dear.

You do realize that if someone thinks what the site administrators did was 99.99999% correct that they would have to vote No in your poll, right?

So in conclusion the poll could've been more precise by saying "the mods treated dug fairly" and the current poll is not bias.

[qeee1]

Also there will be a tendancy to vote for the first option even if you don't really agree with it.

1) a large amount of people will agree with the mods in general
2) People are angry at the fact the issue has dragged on and vote 1) in protest.

I imagine a large amount of people do agree with the mods in general. However, it seems there's no particular disincentive to expressing disagreement with what the mods do. I don't think it would take much effort to find instances where the mods are challenged when their actions are felt to not be in the best interests of the site. Also, as the poll is a secret ballot there's no possible way for the mods to find out how a particular person voted. So while I take your point that a large amount of people agree with the mods in general I think that reflects more the fact that both the mods and the the people share a concern for the well-being of the site, than fear of intimidation or retaliation for going against the mods.

It's not fear of intimidation I'm talking about, no one's afraid, but rather a we love the mods, everything they do is right type sentiment I'm talking about.

I accept your second point, but tend to think the actual number of people who would base their entire vote solely on that to be quite small despite widespread numbers who would undoubtedly share the underlying sentiment.

I disagree. I think most borderline cases will be pushed that way.

As for more people being happy if a different course of action were taken, I see absolutely no justification for believing that. In fact, quite the opposite is probably true, had the punishment been any more lenient the number of people dissatisfied with the mods' decision would increase rather than decrease. I know that's true in my case.

I call bullshit. The majority of people wouldn't feel upset if dug had been warned and only banned if he persisted in creating those controversial games. Perhaps in your personal case, you would, but that's your personal case...

That's something that's easily put to the test with another poll. If you're as convinced as you sound that the outcome would be favorable, you've only to construct the poll, sit back, and let the results come in proving you right.

Nobody wants to see another goddam poll. Honestly I'm tired of this whole debate. It's stupid. I mean from a utilitarian point of view it seems immensely obvious to me that a warning of banning would have been the best course of action. The people who would have been upset that he got a warning before an immediate ban would not likely have been very upset. Certainly not on the scale the pro-duggers are.

As for Dug persisting in creating those "controversial" game, isn't his position that those fraudulent point-giveaway games were entirely legal. I've never heard him express any other opinion about those games. As far as I know, he's never expressed any regret or remorse for setting those games up, including the doubles games in which he helpfully not only gave away his own points but also those of his partner. To call Dug unrepentant is perhaps an understatement.

I haven't been much in contact with dug myself. I sent him one short message of solidarity ingame, and that's it, but I do seem to remember reading in the forum him saying that though he wasn't technically doing anything illegal he should have known he'd get in trouble. He's also said that his intentions in the doubles games weren't to give away his points but rather to talk to his friends.

So a warning wherein someone is informed that what he is doing is wrong, is not likely to have much of an effect if the person doesn't believe what he is doing is wrong. The result would have been exactly the same except more innocent people involved in Dug's "controversial" games would have been harmed in the meantime while the warning process dragged on. To me that seems a large price to pay for little or no benefit since I think everyone can agree (as I'm sure would Dug) that a warning would have had absolutely no effect on Dug's behavior.

The warning's purpose would be to let dug know that what he was doing was against the ethos of the site, and he would get a banning if he did it. Not necessarily to convince him what he was doing was wrong, but if so that's a bonus.

And even if such a warning failed to stop him, then it would still have achieved something else, that is justification for banning him, and far less shit would have followed.

Anyway the argument is irrelevant now, it'd only make things worse if he came back at this stage, it'd undermine the mods authority, anger people etc. It's just a shame it went down this way.

[neutralbias]

Wow, do any of you put this much effort into self-improvement, your families, or your community? You're pathetic...why not utilize this debate ability into something that actually matters. Whatever...you all suck. I'm glad that I don't actually have to see any of you in the flesh, and just play for 10 minutes a day.

[RobinJ]

Why the f*ck did you drag this back up again? We've already had our argument about a month ago and we could really do without having to repeat everything again. Dug deserved what he got and even if you disagree, the mods decision was final anyway. Besides, he inflicted most of it upon himself by quiting the site. Have you even read into the background of the situation? f*ck off mate!

[neutralbias]

yeah, lick my shaft! I did read some of it until I got bored, like your parents were when they conceived you...douche.