Page 2 of 2
Re: dear ronc8649
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 8:44 am
by thegreekdog
There may need to be a re-re-re-re-revisitation of the banning rules. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Ron was banned for 6 months for using the word "f*ck" in a forum post approximately 30 times. That seems to be overkill (both the use and the ban). It also seems like a little bit of miscommunication. How is one supposed to know how many times he or she can use the word; especially when there's no indication that people that use the word "f*ck" in their posts on a regular basis are banned or disciplined in any way.
Re: dear ronc8649
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 9:07 am
by Ronaldinho
thegreekdog wrote: How is one supposed to know how many times he or she can use the word; especially when there's no indication that people that use the word "f*ck" in their posts on a regular basis are banned or disciplined in any way.
Pretty self explanatory, learn some manors and don't be a nonce. Be nice. Be polite and only say f*ck in capitals.
Re: dear ronc8649
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:15 am
by thegreekdog
Ronaldinho wrote:thegreekdog wrote: How is one supposed to know how many times he or she can use the word; especially when there's no indication that people that use the word "f*ck" in their posts on a regular basis are banned or disciplined in any way.
Pretty self explanatory, learn some manors and don't be a nonce. Be nice. Be polite and only say f*ck in capitals.
Hey, I'm all for manners and not using foul language; except that none of those requirements are located in the rules. In fact the rules say "Yes, we are liaberal on coarse language, but this does not mean cyber-bullying or abusive bigotry is acceptable anywhere."
So, if we take as a premise that one is disciplined if one violates the rules, why was Ron disiciplined if he did not violate the rules?
Re: dear ronc8649
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:20 am
by jefjef
thegreekdog wrote:Ronaldinho wrote:thegreekdog wrote: How is one supposed to know how many times he or she can use the word; especially when there's no indication that people that use the word "f*ck" in their posts on a regular basis are banned or disciplined in any way.
Pretty self explanatory, learn some manors and don't be a nonce. Be nice. Be polite and only say f*ck in capitals.
Hey, I'm all for manners and not using foul language; except that none of those requirements are located in the rules. In fact the rules say "Yes, we are liaberal on coarse language, but this does not mean cyber-bullying or abusive bigotry is acceptable anywhere."
So, if we take as a premise that one is disciplined if one violates the rules, why was Ron disiciplined if he did not violate the rules?
Because the fucks and stuff were aimed at our masters. Uh I mean CC. They baited him with that eye burning pink vomit. AGAIN.
Re: dear ronc8649
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:35 am
by thegreekdog
jefjef wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Ronaldinho wrote:thegreekdog wrote: How is one supposed to know how many times he or she can use the word; especially when there's no indication that people that use the word "f*ck" in their posts on a regular basis are banned or disciplined in any way.
Pretty self explanatory, learn some manors and don't be a nonce. Be nice. Be polite and only say f*ck in capitals.
Hey, I'm all for manners and not using foul language; except that none of those requirements are located in the rules. In fact the rules say "Yes, we are liaberal on coarse language, but this does not mean cyber-bullying or abusive bigotry is acceptable anywhere."
So, if we take as a premise that one is disciplined if one violates the rules, why was Ron disiciplined if he did not violate the rules?
So he was cyber-bullying the moderators? I'm not sure how cyber-bullying could apply to people that can ban you.
Because the fucks and stuff were aimed at our masters. Uh I mean CC. They baited him with that eye burning pink vomit. AGAIN.
Re: dear ronc8649
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:41 am
by jefjef
He didn't cyber bully.
He voiced his displeasure to those that provide a service for profit that he PAID to have.
He was being a disgruntled customer.
Same thing with FruitCake.
Re: dear ronc8649
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:51 am
by Ronaldinho
thegreekdog wrote:Ronaldinho wrote:thegreekdog wrote: How is one supposed to know how many times he or she can use the word; especially when there's no indication that people that use the word "f*ck" in their posts on a regular basis are banned or disciplined in any way.
Pretty self explanatory, learn some manors and don't be a nonce. Be nice. Be polite and only say f*ck in capitals.
Hey, I'm all for manners and not using foul language; except that none of those requirements are located in the rules. In fact the rules say "Yes, we are liaberal on coarse language, but this does not mean cyber-bullying or abusive bigotry is acceptable anywhere."
So, if we take as a premise that one is disciplined if one violates the rules, why was Ron disiciplined if he did not violate the rules?
Then i'll go with the use of "f*ck" in non-capitals.
Re: dear ronc8649
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:44 pm
by AndyDufresne
Neither of them were vacationed for cyber-bullying, just to clear that up.
--Andy
Re: dear ronc8649
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:03 pm
by thegreekdog
AndyDufresne wrote:Neither of them were vacationed for cyber-bullying, just to clear that up.
--Andy
Do you know what they were vacationed for? Do you know how long they are vacationed for?
If the answers to either of those two questions are "yes," can you please let us know why they were vacationed and how long they were vacationed? Thanks.
Re: dear ronc8649
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:08 pm
by jefjef
thegreekdog wrote:AndyDufresne wrote:Neither of them were vacationed for cyber-bullying, just to clear that up.
--Andy
Do you know what they were vacationed for? Do you know how long they are vacationed for?
If the answers to either of those two questions are "yes," can you please let us know why they were vacationed and how long they were vacationed? Thanks.
ronc is 6 month.
I hear FC was 24 hour.
What they posted in contempt of the
PINK is exactly what they were banned for. But do not expect an official CC comment on it.
Re: dear ronc8649
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:05 pm
by Uncle Death
The whole thing has soured me quite a bit.
Re: dear ronc8649
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:06 pm
by thegreekdog
jefjef wrote:thegreekdog wrote:AndyDufresne wrote:Neither of them were vacationed for cyber-bullying, just to clear that up.
--Andy
Do you know what they were vacationed for? Do you know how long they are vacationed for?
If the answers to either of those two questions are "yes," can you please let us know why they were vacationed and how long they were vacationed? Thanks.
ronc is 6 month.
I hear FC was 24 hour.
What they posted in contempt of the
PINK is exactly what they were banned for. But do not expect an official CC comment on it.
I'm hoping that my reasonable requests will be met with reasonable answers. Andy is a reasonable fellow, so it's not out of the ordinary that I can expect reasonableness from him.
That's a lot of reasonable.
Re: dear ronc8649
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 5:40 pm
by AndyDufresne
thegreekdog wrote:
I'm hoping that my reasonable requests will be met with reasonable answers. Andy is a reasonable fellow, so it's not out of the ordinary that I can expect reasonableness from him.
That's a lot of reasonable.
Had neither of them repeatedly trolled their dismay in multiple topics, things would have been without any sort of stepping in. But unfortunately posting in multiplicity edged towards and on trolling. Moreover, there are certain issues brought up in the confidentiality of e-tickets, by one of the parties, which we are looking into.
--Andy
Re: dear ronc8649
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 5:48 pm
by thegreekdog
So it was trolling, which is against the rules. A reasonable answer to be sure.
The question is, do the punishments for trolling need to be changed (vis-a-vis escalating punishments)?
Re: dear ronc8649
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 5:50 pm
by AndyDufresne
Changing policy should probably be in another topic---though I don't think there is any need for a new policy. Of all the users using the Forum boards, few if any need discipline. And actually, it looks like the amount of discipline dished out (in quantifiable data) has steadily decreased over the past 5/6 months.
--Andy
Re: dear ronc8649
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 5:59 pm
by thegreekdog
AndyDufresne wrote:Changing policy should probably be in another topic---though I don't think there is any need for a new policy. Of all the users using the Forum boards, few if any need discipline. And actually, it looks like the amount of discipline dished out (in quantifiable data) has steadily decreased over the past 5/6 months.
--Andy
I won't post policy changes here (that would be off topic). However, I will say that part of the reason there are less people to discipline is because there are less people to discipline, which is what happens when there are escalating punishments.
While I understand that Ron was being disruptive (and knew he was being disruptive) and that his next violation would result in a 6 month ban, I do not think he realized that these particular disruptive actions rose to the level of warranting a ban (and a 6 month ban at that). It's not as if this was some novel concept that no one has ever engaged in before; trolling is far worse in other places in the fora and cursing is used far more liberally in game chat and the fora with the punishment being "FAMO!"
In any event, nothing I type is going to change the situation (and I'm not grousing about it, I'm just saying...). Perhaps it's the lawyer thing.
Re: dear ronc8649
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:07 pm
by Fruitcake
In all honesty I was seriously teed off with that godawful colour, every time I was dealing with clan records (and so accessing the BpB forum) I had to put up with it ( I play very little now, focussing on the BpB clan league games and requirements). I then saw more and more postings on the issue and added my ten penney worth to voice displeasure in no uncertain terms.
I was informed by email of my ban and responded with a 'yawn' email.
I was intrigued by the news in the 'official' email this was my second minor infraction and texted nag to ask what my first was. He told me it can only have been the ban all the BpBs received around 12 months ago. As I have never received a warning since I can only assume he is correct. This means my second infraction, which normally brings a 72 hour ban only, in this case, brought me a 24 hour ban. If this is so, then fair enough, I see the rationale for the length of ban if not the ban itself. If there was another minor infraction I never received a warning.
All that has happened (from my subjective view) is that the heavy hand (tempered by length of ban it would seem) of the admin interfered briefly with my activities in the BpB forum.
I am sorry, but I know little about roncs ban. Having noticed my ban was mentioned I thought it best to answer as rationally as possible regarding mine so the picture was clear and not muddied by idle chat and gossip.
Re: dear ronc8649
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 8:13 pm
by Georgerx7di
Fruitcake wrote:In all honesty I was seriously teed off with that godawful colour,
To be honest I have to agree with Fruitcake, which is not something that happens everyday. The color really was rather bright and irritating to the eye. I believe you guys did it on April 1 and valentines last year (correct me if I'm wrong), I do hope we won't see that bright of a shade of pink again. Perhaps a red that isn't so bright would be a little easier to tolerate in the future.
George
Re: dear ronc8649
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 3:26 am
by Ronaldinho
What annoyed me was that this horrific pink was aloud, but no PANCAKES?!?!?!!!!!!! Come on guys prioritize!
Re: dear ronc8649
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 8:53 am
by lackattack
Very true, Ronaldinho. Next Valentine's we will not make it pink but instead serve pancakes (extra syrup for ronc8649!)
Re: dear ronc8649
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:16 am
by truly_tasha
lackattack wrote:Very true, Ronaldinho. Next Valentine's we will not make it pink but instead serve pancakes (extra syrup for ronc8649!)
I would like chocolate chips in mine and maybe some banana pancakes for Andy please
Re: dear ronc8649
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:22 am
by Mr Changsha
Things I like that are pink!
Pink cars! Pink grass! Pink pills! Pink pigs! Pinkity, pink, pink, pink!
Pink nipples! Pink sofas! Pink vegetables! Pink g strings! Piiiiiinnnnnnnkkkkkkk!
Pink nails! Pink eyes! Pink CC! Pink beds! Pikey pink!
Pink houses! Pink pussies! Pink cats! Pink people! Pinktastic!
Pink phones! Pink weed! Pink trousers! Pink countries!
But the best of all is little pink pills! Everything's so piiinnnnkkkkk! Woot!!!!!
Re: dear ronc8649
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:45 am
by Army of GOD
Mr Changsha wrote:I'm a pink addict
I meant to speak to you about this Changsha. I'm gonna have to intervene....