JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:you have convicted multis and farmers listed here. Im not sure what part you dint understand ?
The part I don't understand is that he was banned for bad language in game chat. this has nothing to do with farmers or multis it has to do with him being banned over game chat, and i don't think it was an appropriate course of action
the majority of the people in the original thread pretty much said to not get your panties in a bunch and use the foe feature simple as that
and the people I listed are the people I would also stand up for if they were banned over something as trivial as game chat and cursing its just not right to me
ok, i dont know the whole story, so dont jump on me for not reading it all, but I would greatly appreciate a mod clarifying weather or not c.c. has started banning people for bad language in game chat.
reckedracing wrote:When they came for Fred, no one stood up because it didn't affect them. When they came for codeblue, no one stood up because it didn't affect them. When they came for stunna, no one stood up because it didn't affect them. When they came for bruceswar, no one stood up because it didn't affect them. When they came for aeromate, no one stood up because it didn't affect them. When they came for demonfork, no one stood up because it didn't affect them. And when they came for me, no one stood up, because there was no one left.
This is incredibly vulgar. Yes, I can see how the mods possibly (but not necessarily) being bit harsh on a player on an online RISK forum is a lot like the way the Nazis in turn violently dealt with all the political, cultural and religious groups that opposed them.
To appropriate CC to the Holocaust is extremely distasteful and inappropriate. Even as a joke I find it to be in very bad taste. Next time try to keep your "humor" at least at a "humane" level.
"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then... they came for me... And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
That's the one the author prefers, anyway, there's quite a few versions going around.
But yeah, I find it incredible that he even considered using a poem with such a connection to the Nazi purges, let alone actually using it in a very serious tone. I don't know whether it was intentional, or if he's just stupid, but seems to me that by using it he compared the mods to the Nazi's. I don't think I have to explain why that is ridiculous. Or maybe I do. I won't.
While I DEFINITELY agree with you guys about the inappropriateness of the poem being used in this manner, I suspect it's more a matter of the original poster not being fully aware of the context of the poem. It's a commonly-heard one, after all, so they may have heard it and felt like it SEEMED appropriate without being able to recognize why it wasn't.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
reckedracing wrote:When they came for Fred, no one stood up because it didn't affect them. When they came for codeblue, no one stood up because it didn't affect them. When they came for stunna, no one stood up because it didn't affect them. When they came for bruceswar, no one stood up because it didn't affect them. When they came for aeromate, no one stood up because it didn't affect them. When they came for demonfork, no one stood up because it didn't affect them. And when they came for me, no one stood up, because there was no one left.
This is incredibly vulgar. Yes, I can see how the mods possibly (but not necessarily) being bit harsh on a player on an online RISK forum is a lot like the way the Nazis in turn violently dealt with all the political, cultural and religious groups that opposed them.
To appropriate CC to the Holocaust is extremely distasteful and inappropriate. Even as a joke I find it to be in very bad taste. Next time try to keep your "humor" at least at a "humane" level.
"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then... they came for me... And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
That's the one the author prefers, anyway, there's quite a few versions going around.
But yeah, I find it incredible that he even considered using a poem with such a connection to the Nazi purges, let alone actually using it in a very serious tone. I don't know whether it was intentional, or if he's just stupid, but seems to me that by using it he compared the mods to the Nazi's. I don't think I have to explain why that is ridiculous. Or maybe I do. I won't.
While I DEFINITELY agree with you guys about the inappropriateness of the poem being used in this manner, I suspect it's more a matter of the original poster not being fully aware of the context of the poem. It's a commonly-heard one, after all, so they may have heard it and felt like it SEEMED appropriate without being able to recognize why it wasn't.
That may be true... I guess I'm not as inclined to see the best in people as you are...
niMic wrote:This is incredibly vulgar. Yes, I can see how the mods possibly (but not necessarily) being bit harsh on a player on an online RISK forum is a lot like the way the Nazis in turn violently dealt with all the political, cultural and religious groups that opposed them.
To appropriate CC to the Holocaust is extremely distasteful and inappropriate. Even as a joke I find it to be in very bad taste. Next time try to keep your "humor" at least at a "humane" level.
"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then... they came for me... And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
That's the one the author prefers, anyway, there's quite a few versions going around.
But yeah, I find it incredible that he even considered using a poem with such a connection to the Nazi purges, let alone actually using it in a very serious tone. I don't know whether it was intentional, or if he's just stupid, but seems to me that by using it he compared the mods to the Nazi's. I don't think I have to explain why that is ridiculous. Or maybe I do. I won't.
While I DEFINITELY agree with you guys about the inappropriateness of the poem being used in this manner, I suspect it's more a matter of the original poster not being fully aware of the context of the poem. It's a commonly-heard one, after all, so they may have heard it and felt like it SEEMED appropriate without being able to recognize why it wasn't.
That may be true... I guess I'm not as inclined to see the best in people as you are...
My suspicion isn't based on seeing the best in people so much as it's a presumption on my part that he's a kid and so may not be as educated about that time in history as some of the rest of us.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
To appropriate CC to the Holocaust is extremely distasteful and inappropriate. Even as a joke I find it to be in very bad taste. Next time try to keep your "humor" at least at a "humane" level.
"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then... they came for me... And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
That's the one the author prefers, anyway, there's quite a few versions going around.
But yeah, I find it incredible that he even considered using a poem with such a connection to the Nazi purges, let alone actually using it in a very serious tone. I don't know whether it was intentional, or if he's just stupid, but seems to me that by using it he compared the mods to the Nazi's. I don't think I have to explain why that is ridiculous. Or maybe I do. I won't.
While I DEFINITELY agree with you guys about the inappropriateness of the poem being used in this manner, I suspect it's more a matter of the original poster not being fully aware of the context of the poem. It's a commonly-heard one, after all, so they may have heard it and felt like it SEEMED appropriate without being able to recognize why it wasn't.
That may be true... I guess I'm not as inclined to see the best in people as you are...
My suspicion isn't based on seeing the best in people so much as it's a presumption on my part that he's a kid and so may not be as educated about that time in history as some of the rest of us.
Well unless he's still single digits, I doubt he hasn't heard of the Holocaust. He may not realize it's full implications yet but he should still recognize the seriousness of the event.
p.s. Who knew you could only embed 5 quotes within each other???
Woodruff wrote:While I DEFINITELY agree with you guys about the inappropriateness of the poem being used in this manner, I suspect it's more a matter of the original poster not being fully aware of the context of the poem. It's a commonly-heard one, after all, so they may have heard it and felt like it SEEMED appropriate without being able to recognize why it wasn't.
You could be right, of course. I thought it was a fairly known poem/speech/something though, so I'm surprised if he didn't even suspect the original intent. Either way I think he should have realized it didn't exactly fit the circumstances. I commented a little while back on how hysteric a few of the "free Fred" gang seemed, and this just put it up a notch. It should be possible to calmly discussing the merits of his ban without resorting to wild exaggerations.
niMic wrote:You could be right, of course. I thought it was a fairly known poem/speech/something though, so I'm surprised if he didn't even suspect the original intent. Either way I think he should have realized it didn't exactly fit the circumstances. I commented a little while back on how hysteric a few of the "free Fred" gang seemed, and this just put it up a notch. It should be possible to calmly discussing the merits of his ban without resorting to wild exaggerations.
Well, some can.
in reaction to someone being banned for breaking the rules, the standard is exaggeration, verbal attacks to the opposition, and ridiculous logic based on hearsay and not much more than gossip. i know ive had personal attacks against me so far following every single post i made in this thread.. of course nobody discussed what i said, only what a loser and an idiot i must be for disagreeing with them.
i dont think foul language is a reason for a perma-ban, everyone uses foul language at time, even this knob above me who just loves to spam, i think CC should hold a vote between all the users to see if FRED is allowed back or not. then we will really see the effect of bad language in the community......nothing!
jammyjames wrote:i dont think foul language is a reason for a perma-ban, everyone uses foul language at time, even this knob above me who just loves to spam, i think CC should hold a vote between all the users to see if FRED is allowed back or not. then we will really see the effect of bad language in the community......nothing!
Popularity of an individual should NEVER be the reason for keeping someone on the site, in my personal opinion. And for most people, that's unfortunately exactly what this would come down to (there would be a few who would vote on the reason for the ban itself, of course).
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
I kind of think that this guy has a point. Bad language is really not a good reason to ban someone, especially when its in game chat. The counter argument is that this was a progression of disciplinary actions, and he was at the final step. This is a reasonable argument, except one has to ask one question. If he was at the first step, would have have gotten the first punishment for bad language in game chat. In other words, does bad language in game chat warrant any punishment at all. I'm really on the fence about this one. I understand banning someone for repeated offenses, but I wish it had been for a better reason.
One final note, I believe that jeff was kid. Being that this is a site where we play a game, there are likely to be a lot of teenagers on here, cc should be cautious about how much they expect from teenagers, and how harsh they are toward them.
Georgerx7di wrote: Bad language is really not a good reason to ban someone, especially when its in game chat. I understand banning someone for repeated offenses, but I wish it had been for a better reason.
this pretty much sums it up for me everyone wants to confuse and bring his record into play, but the basic fact is he was banned for something at least half this site has done in game chat
Georgerx7di wrote:One final note, I believe that jeff was kid. Being that this is a site where we play a game, there are likely to be a lot of teenagers on here, cc should be cautious about how much they expect from teenagers, and how harsh they are toward them.
I don't really have any disagreement with the rest of your post, so I cut it out. However, on this, I must disagree...teenagers are almost ALL capable of acting up to whatever expectations are placed on them. Unfortunately, too many people don't try to put expectations on them (as far as standards go, that sort of thing...the GOOD kind of expectations), which is a lot of the reason why teenagers struggle. They're many times LOOKING for someone to give them some expectations and when the only people that do so are their friends, well then that's where peer pressure gains such strength.
Now, I recognize that has more to do with things that are much more important than actions on this site (so perhaps might not apply as much here), but I thought it was worth saying.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Georgerx7di wrote:One final note, I believe that jeff was kid. Being that this is a site where we play a game, there are likely to be a lot of teenagers on here, cc should be cautious about how much they expect from teenagers, and how harsh they are toward them.
I don't really have any disagreement with the rest of your post, so I cut it out. However, on this, I must disagree...teenagers are almost ALL capable of acting up to whatever expectations are placed on them. Unfortunately, too many people don't try to put expectations on them (as far as standards go, that sort of thing...the GOOD kind of expectations), which is a lot of the reason why teenagers struggle. They're many times LOOKING for someone to give them some expectations and when the only people that do so are their friends, well then that's where peer pressure gains such strength.
Now, I recognize that has more to do with things that are much more important than actions on this site (so perhaps might not apply as much here), but I thought it was worth saying.
Aptly stated, as always Woodruff.
And to stay on point...I recall Andy providing several factors influencing the decision to ban, and foul language in chat was not the sole reason for permanent dismissal.
General Guster wrote:And to stay on point...I recall Andy providing several factors influencing the decision to ban, and foul language in chat was not the sole reason for permanent dismissal.
cumulative banning needs to be addressed. Fred did several things that were questionable, and i do not defend them. but to toss him for foul language in game chat, and to state that it was the final straw to break the camel's back is a joke. great, he was warned for language ONE TIME. so why not punish him for THAT offense and not roll it up into a bunch of other unrelated offenses? witch hunt, period. if what FRED did was such a horrible offense, then why in the hell is codeblue still permitted to post within game chat? the solution was simple. if FRED's transgression was to the level of truly being beyond offensive and beyond being warned against, suspend his ability to post in game chat. CC can do this. why won't CC do this in this case? rolling all of FRED's offenses into one big ball and then kicking him for the smallest of all of these rule infractions makes the admins/mod squad look laughable. this should be rethought, revisited, and rescinded.-0
Thorthoth,"Cloaking one's C&A fetish with moral authority and righteous indignation makes it ever so much more erotically thrilling"
owenshooter wrote:rolling all of FRED's offenses into one big ball and then kicking him for the smallest of all of these rule infractions makes the admins/mod squad look laughable. this should be rethought, revisited, and rescinded.-0
i dunno, if you cant enjoy cc without breaking the rules, do you really want to stay at cc anyway? why not go somewhere where they dont care about the rules. im sure there are many other sites that will let people get away with whatever they want indefinately... perhaps do both, play at cc and behave, and go somewhere else to misbehave...
just seems like kind of a hassle to knowingly break rules and push on the boundaries, get in trouble, complain about it, yada yada yada.
owenshooter wrote:rolling all of FRED's offenses into one big ball and then kicking him for the smallest of all of these rule infractions makes the admins/mod squad look laughable. this should be rethought, revisited, and rescinded.-0
i dunno, if you cant enjoy cc without breaking the rules, do you really want to stay at cc anyway? why not go somewhere where they dont care about the rules. im sure there are many other sites that will let people get away with whatever they want indefinately... perhaps do both, play at cc and behave, and go somewhere else to misbehave...
just seems like kind of a hassle to knowingly break rules and push on the boundaries, get in trouble, complain about it, yada yada yada.
he cursed in game chat... ever seen codeblue's list of offenses in the C&A forums? i challenge you to find me another member kicked for a first offense for offensive game chat. to lump this offense in with the others and then use it to ban him is bush league. this case should have been treated in and of itself. if it had been treated as such, he would have been giving a warning at least and a short vacation from posting in game chat at the most. surely, like codeblue, he would not have been perma-banned. with this ruling, the powers that be are muddying their clouded waters even more, and making the rules/bans more and more subjective as to who is in charge on any given day...-0
Thorthoth,"Cloaking one's C&A fetish with moral authority and righteous indignation makes it ever so much more erotically thrilling"
General Guster wrote:And to stay on point...I recall Andy providing several factors influencing the decision to ban, and foul language in chat was not the sole reason for permanent dismissal.
cumulative banning needs to be addressed. Fred did several things that were questionable, and i do not defend them. but to toss him for foul language in game chat, and to state that it was the final straw to break the camel's back is a joke. great, he was warned for language ONE TIME. so why not punish him for THAT offense and not roll it up into a bunch of other unrelated offenses?
I would tend to agree that the progressiveness of punishments should be specific to the particular offense. However, IF that is the case, then the progressiveness should NOT be lenient.
In other words, a punishment for game-chat abuse (not bigotry-related, as that would fall under more severe sanctions) would not be viewed as part of a punishment for trolling. Each should receive the minimum reaction for the first offense OF EACH. However, the progression should be significant in each category.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
It seems to me like he's getting punished twice for the his past offenses. The first time through he got his, but since he had them on his record, they use it to justify his permaban along with something not even really against the rules (swearing in game chat) as if he had done those things again.
Didn't know the guy or the the situation with him, but that's what it looks like to me.
<>---------------------------<> ......Come play CC Mafia, .....where happiness lies <>----------[Link]----------<>
F1fth wrote:It seems to me like he's getting punished twice for the his past offenses. The first time through he got his, but since he had them on his record, they use it to justify his permaban along with something not even really against the rules (swearing in game chat) as if he had done those things again. Didn't know the guy or the the situation with him, but that's what it looks like to me.
That's clearly the case, yes. But I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing, when applied appropriately. Past actions SHOULD have an impact on punishments, in my opinion. I do tend to think they may have been mis-applied in this case.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
