Conquer Club

I think the most severe punishment should be like a life with parole type of punishment. Sure, a person can get permabanned from the forums, but if he is very exemplary, say, in game chat and live chat, then he should be able to file for an appeal some ways down the road.

MeDeFe wrote:Guys, all of you, you're sidetracking this thread. I was under the impression that this was to be a discussion about the practice of permabanning itself. Yes, DM's ban was what kicked this debate off, but we really shouldn't limit it to his case. This is also not about who was and wasn't disgraced or whether there was or wasn't debate only about the exact lengths of bans for racism and bigotry or for all infractions.

Can we please stick to the topic at hand: Permabans, when are they actually justified?

Yeah, mods, please address this. You keep skirting my OP. Maybe we should give you a 24 hour vacation for it, for going off topic.

Especially lancehoch, he/she/it should be given a forum vacation for going off-topic and trolling, as well as for sputtering about. Also, make sure that ban goes on a PERMANENT RECORD so no matter what he can never live it down.

thegreekdog wrote:Two Questions:

(1) What is the punishment for racism and/or bigotry? What is the punishment after the first offense?
(2) What is the punishment for trolling and/or being intentionally annoying? What is the punishment after the first offense?

I think probably the rules or punishments need to be changed at this point.

I probably wasn't too clear when I first posted this. My point was that in the former case (racism and/or bigory), continuous racism and bigotry probably warrants a permanent ban. I don't think the latter case (trolling and/or being annoying), continually engaging in such activities probably doesn't warrant a permanent ban. However, in either case, after a certain number of escalating punishments, the final answer is a permanent ban. I don't think that is a satisfactory answer when one abuse of the system is extremely detrimental to the community and the other is mildly annoying.

So far the only decent mod in this thread has been jpcloet. Dude, come back.

Optimus Prime pitched a hissy fit and ran away when people started asking questions (can we call this Pullin' a Palin, from now on?), which is even more disheartening.

Optimus Prime wrote:All of you cry for us to listen, apologize, and reform, but none of you are willing to make a similar effort yourselves. It appears that it will always be a losing battle for the members of the team. Quite interesting how that pans out in the end, don't you think?

Enjoy your continued discussion on the infinite number of injustices served upon you by the admins and moderators. As it appears no measure of good will or good intention on my part will help to improve the situation to the satisfaction of the masses at large you'll kindly understand my wish to no longer participate.

Regards, Optimus Prime

Pullin' a Palin.

i.e., would you like a kleenex, dearie? or would you like to demonstrate some actual leadership? (hint: you want to pick the latter)

If you refuse to be a leader and do something that will benefit the community and help ameliorate the huge blow to morale AndyDufresne has caused, then I have to tell you Optimus Prime, I've gone ahead and picked you up a holiday gift early. It's a nice big cross. So every time you feel unappreciated, you can climb on up and nail yourself to it.

Otherwise, stop being a baby and LEAD.

lancehoch wrote:StiffMittens on the pervasive nature of a problem:

StiffMittens wrote:That just indicates that the problem is more systemic rather than centered around just one staff member (or a few staff members).

[Sarcasm]And I thought we weren't consistent.[/Sarcasm] Seriously though, most moderators can only give out 24 hour vacations, some moderators can give out 72 hour vacations. Only admins can give out vacations of longer than 72 hours, so anything more than that was given by an admin and likely discussed among all of the admins. Might the admins have a hair trigger? Maybe, maybe not, I personally don't think they do.

By using the word systemic, I meant that the system of escalating punishments was the greater problem rather than the behavior of individual mods/admins. There will always be questions about whether an individual moderator or admin is acting impartially or fairly, and sometimes those questions will be warranted. And so the goal, I think, is to devise a system which reduces the potential for abuse as much as possible while still remaining effective in managing the community. Now, that this system was discussed and agreed upon previously by at least some members of the community is irrelevant. Very likely not everyone got a chance (or perhaps didn't even bother) to participate in that discussion. This recent incident with DM is having the effect of causing some of those who did participate in the discussion on the escalation ladder to rethink their position, or to "re-lobby" for things that they weren't satisfied with in the outcome of the previous discussion, or some of those who didn't participate in the previous discussion have now had some sort of wake up call with respect to DM's ban and want to reopen negotiations on the topic. And what's wrong with that? The universe is a dynamic place (the internet doubly so). You can't expect to come with a "set it and forget it" system. Situations change. Opinions change. Everything changes all the time. You can't prevent chaos, you need to learn how to ride it.

lancehoch wrote:Next with regard to the escalation of punishments (TheProwler):

TheProwler wrote:...A person shoplifts and is found guilty...shortened
But there is no way this annoying prick is going to ever be executed or thrown into jail for more than a few months for shoplifting. He might get another year for stealing a car. But never, ever, life.

I would like to direct your attention to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law. Specifically this quotation:

Some unusual scenarios have arisen, particularly in California — the state punishes shoplifting and similar crimes involving over $500 in property as felony petty theft if the person who committed the crime has a prior conviction for any form of theft, including robbery or burglary. As a result, some defendants have been given sentences of 25 years to life in prison for such crimes as shoplifting golf clubs (Gary Ewing, previous strikes for burglary and robbery with a knife), nine videotapes (Leandro Andrade, received double sentence of 25 year-to-life for 2 counts of shoplifting), or, along with a violent assault, a slice of pepperoni pizza from a group of children (Jerry Dewayne Williams, four previous non-violent felonies, sentence later reduced to six years).

And you think these are all acceptable outcomes? I agree that recidivism is a problem, but throwing someone in jail for life because they shoplifted some videotapes is ridiculous. Clearly that guy has a problem and some other strategy is needed to redirect his faulty behavior, but life in prison? How does that help?

StiffMittens wrote:

lancehoch wrote:Next with regard to the escalation of punishments (TheProwler):

TheProwler wrote:...A person shoplifts and is found guilty...shortened
But there is no way this annoying prick is going to ever be executed or thrown into jail for more than a few months for shoplifting. He might get another year for stealing a car. But never, ever, life.

I would like to direct your attention to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law. Specifically this quotation:

Some unusual scenarios have arisen, particularly in California — the state punishes shoplifting and similar crimes involving over $500 in property as felony petty theft if the person who committed the crime has a prior conviction for any form of theft, including robbery or burglary. As a result, some defendants have been given sentences of 25 years to life in prison for such crimes as shoplifting golf clubs (Gary Ewing, previous strikes for burglary and robbery with a knife), nine videotapes (Leandro Andrade, received double sentence of 25 year-to-life for 2 counts of shoplifting), or, along with a violent assault, a slice of pepperoni pizza from a group of children (Jerry Dewayne Williams, four previous non-violent felonies, sentence later reduced to six years).

And you think these are all acceptable outcomes? I agree that recidivism is a problem, but throwing someone in jail for life because they shoplifted some videotapes is ridiculous. Clearly that guy has a problem and some other strategy is needed to redirect his faulty behavior, but life in prison? How does that help?

Yeah..using the three-strikes law's fucked up scenarios to support your system as normal isn't exactly brilliant, lance.

Lesson is: You use a knife to intimidate, sometimes you get cut.

MeDeFe wrote:Can we please stick to the topic at hand: Permabans, when are they actually justified?

When people continually disregard the rules of the site. Any entity that deals with people interacting with other people (even if said people are using pseudo names) must have some sort of rule book to govern that interaction. And for people who fail to follow those rules after given warnings and temporary vacations, a permanent ban should always be available, and implemented.

Snorri1234 wrote:

StiffMittens wrote:

lancehoch wrote:Next with regard to the escalation of punishments (TheProwler):

TheProwler wrote:...A person shoplifts and is found guilty...shortened
But there is no way this annoying prick is going to ever be executed or thrown into jail for more than a few months for shoplifting. He might get another year for stealing a car. But never, ever, life.

I would like to direct your attention to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law. Specifically this quotation:

Some unusual scenarios have arisen, particularly in California — the state punishes shoplifting and similar crimes involving over $500 in property as felony petty theft if the person who committed the crime has a prior conviction for any form of theft, including robbery or burglary. As a result, some defendants have been given sentences of 25 years to life in prison for such crimes as shoplifting golf clubs (Gary Ewing, previous strikes for burglary and robbery with a knife), nine videotapes (Leandro Andrade, received double sentence of 25 year-to-life for 2 counts of shoplifting), or, along with a violent assault, a slice of pepperoni pizza from a group of children (Jerry Dewayne Williams, four previous non-violent felonies, sentence later reduced to six years).

And you think these are all acceptable outcomes? I agree that recidivism is a problem, but throwing someone in jail for life because they shoplifted some videotapes is ridiculous. Clearly that guy has a problem and some other strategy is needed to redirect his faulty behavior, but life in prison? How does that help?

Yeah..using the three-strikes law's fucked up scenarios to support your system as normal isn't exactly brilliant, lance.

Lance WASN'T using it to support their system so much as he was directly responding to the statement that "But there is no way this annoying prick is going to ever be executed or thrown into jail for more than a few months for shoplifting. He might get another year for stealing a car. But never, ever, life." by pointing out that the poster was not using accurate information.

pimpdave wrote:

Optimus Prime wrote:All of you cry for us to listen, apologize, and reform, but none of you are willing to make a similar effort yourselves. It appears that it will always be a losing battle for the members of the team. Quite interesting how that pans out in the end, don't you think?

Enjoy your continued discussion on the infinite number of injustices served upon you by the admins and moderators. As it appears no measure of good will or good intention on my part will help to improve the situation to the satisfaction of the masses at large you'll kindly understand my wish to no longer participate.

Regards, Optimus Prime

Pullin' a Palin.

i.e., would you like a kleenex, dearie? or would you like to demonstrate some actual leadership? (hint: you want to pick the latter)

If you refuse to be a leader and do something that will benefit the community and help ameliorate the huge blow to morale AndyDufresne has caused, then I have to tell you Optimus Prime, I've gone ahead and picked you up a holiday gift early. It's a nice big cross. So every time you feel unappreciated, you climb on up and nail yourself to it.

Otherwise, stop being a baby and LEAD.

pimpdave, you seem to be the one doing a lot of trolling in your own thread. You were complaining about the mods being off-topic in here?

thegreekdog wrote:I probably wasn't too clear when I first posted this. My point was that in the former case (racism and/or bigory), continuous racism and bigotry probably warrants a permanent ban. I don't think the latter case (trolling and/or being annoying), continually engaging in such activities probably doesn't warrant a permanent ban. However, in either case, after a certain number of escalating punishments, the final answer is a permanent ban. I don't think that is a satisfactory answer when one abuse of the system is extremely detrimental to the community and the other is mildly annoying.

I tend to agree (to a point), though there ARE different routes for the "extremely detrimental" and the "mildly annoying" to get to that same place. My feeling is that the perma-ban is justified in some cases for the "mildly annoying", because they are creating more work for the mods unnecessarily. However, I would put the "standard" for it a lot higher in terms of "how many times have you been previously banned".

pimpdave wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:Guys, all of you, you're sidetracking this thread. I was under the impression that this was to be a discussion about the practice of permabanning itself. Yes, DM's ban was what kicked this debate off, but we really shouldn't limit it to his case. This is also not about who was and wasn't disgraced or whether there was or wasn't debate only about the exact lengths of bans for racism and bigotry or for all infractions.

Can we please stick to the topic at hand: Permabans, when are they actually justified?

Yeah, mods, please address this. You keep skirting my OP. Maybe we should give you a 24 hour vacation for it, for going off topic.

Especially lancehoch, he/she/it should be given a forum vacation for going off-topic and trolling, as well as for sputtering about. Also, make sure that ban goes on a PERMANENT RECORD so no matter what he can never live it down.

moderators can NOT give out perma bans, only site administrators and ultimately the owner can.

Woodruff wrote:
Lance WASN'T using it to support their system so much as he was directly responding to the statement that "But there is no way this annoying prick is going to ever be executed or thrown into jail for more than a few months for shoplifting. He might get another year for stealing a car. But never, ever, life." by pointing out that the poster was not using accurate information.

Well that's really only the case in the US is it not? Surely you're not suggesting Prowler account for every system of law in every country?

Snorri1234 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:
Lance WASN'T using it to support their system so much as he was directly responding to the statement that "But there is no way this annoying prick is going to ever be executed or thrown into jail for more than a few months for shoplifting. He might get another year for stealing a car. But never, ever, life." by pointing out that the poster was not using accurate information.

Well that's really only the case in the US is it not? Surely you're not suggesting Prowler account for every system of law in every country?

Funny thing about using the words "never ever"...it only takes one example to shoot it down, doesn't it. So yes, if he's going to use those words, he is accountable for every system of law in every country (though I'm pretty sure he was only referring to US or possibly western law, since there are some clearly obvious countries in the world where this would be the case anyway).

Woodruff wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:
Lance WASN'T using it to support their system so much as he was directly responding to the statement that "But there is no way this annoying prick is going to ever be executed or thrown into jail for more than a few months for shoplifting. He might get another year for stealing a car. But never, ever, life." by pointing out that the poster was not using accurate information.

Well that's really only the case in the US is it not? Surely you're not suggesting Prowler account for every system of law in every country?

Funny thing about using the words "never ever"...it only takes one example to shoot it down, doesn't it. So yes, if he's going to use those words, he is accountable for every system of law in every country (though I'm pretty sure he was only referring to US or possibly western law, since there are some clearly obvious countries in the world where this would be the case anyway).

I think he was referring to Canada, since that's where he is.

StiffMittens wrote:By using the word systemic, I meant that the system of escalating punishments was the greater problem rather than the behavior of individual mods/admins. There will always be questions about whether an individual moderator or admin is acting impartially or fairly, and sometimes those questions will be warranted. And so the goal, I think, is to devise a system which reduces the potential for abuse as much as possible while still remaining effective in managing the community. Now, that this system was discussed and agreed upon previously by at least some members of the community is irrelevant. Very likely not everyone got a chance (or perhaps didn't even bother) to participate in that discussion. This recent incident with DM is having the effect of causing some of those who did participate in the discussion on the escalation ladder to rethink their position, or to "re-lobby" for things that they weren't satisfied with in the outcome of the previous discussion, or some of those who didn't participate in the previous discussion have now had some sort of wake up call with respect to DM's ban and want to reopen negotiations on the topic. And what's wrong with that? The universe is a dynamic place (the internet doubly so). You can't expect to come with a "set it and forget it" system. Situations change. Opinions change. Everything changes all the time. You can't prevent chaos, you need to learn how to ride it.

I don't disagree with you. Maybe the rules do need a little more tweaking, but there are some factors to be considered. If the ladder is changed to be more lenient, DM still will not be allowed back, just like when the ladder was made less lenient people were not retroactively banned for past transgressions. I am sure that the admins will consider another adjustment to the ladder, if it is presented in a calm rational manner (like your posts have been).

Snorri1234 wrote:Yeah..using the three-strikes law's fucked up scenarios to support your system as normal isn't exactly brilliant, lance.

I was simply using it as an example to contradict TheProwler's point that a shoplifter would never get a life sentence, the person cited in the example received two consecutive sentences of 25 to life for shopifting. I feel that my post was very on point. Now, was TheProwler's analogy the best one to use, probably not, and if so, then my example is meaningless. But, given the example used, I was presenting a counter-argument.

To get back to some other points. Do I personally feel there should be an option to permaban a user (this point is not really being argued, but I thought I would give an opinion anyway)? Yes, I feel that it is absolutely necessary. I will not equate it to a capital sentence in a real court, but to a life sentence. America (where I live and know more about), along with many other nations have a life sentence without the possibility of parole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_impri ... prisonment). When should this be used? I think that while some situations can easily be described and defined (racism/bigotry), others must be taken on a case by case basis. I do not have all of the information about DM's ban, I probably don't have most of the information. From what I saw, yes he was a troll and a nuisance, but it went beyond that. He was warned for racism back in April of 2008, was warned for telling people to post porn, created multiple topics purely to spam the forums, logged into another account to post in the forums, posted personal information on more than one occasion, and those are just the highlights. Most of those are considered major offenses right now. Granted, he did almost all of them before the change in punishment rules, but almost anyone else would have been kicked off of the site a long time ago. He felt like he could get away with murder and was taking advantage of the extra chances that he already had. He was told on at least two occasions, by two different moderators that he was well on his way to a permanent ban, in May and November of last year. In short, do I think that in this case he deserved to go? Yes, and too bad that I didn't get to push the button.

lancehoch wrote:I would like to direct your attention to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law. Specifically this quotation:

Some unusual scenarios have arisen, particularly in California — the state punishes shoplifting and similar crimes involving over $500 in property as felony petty theft if the person who committed the crime has a prior conviction for any form of theft, including robbery or burglary. As a result, some defendants have been given sentences of 25 years to life in prison for such crimes as shoplifting golf clubs (Gary Ewing, previous strikes for burglary and robbery with a knife), nine videotapes (Leandro Andrade, received double sentence of 25 year-to-life for 2 counts of shoplifting), or, along with a violent assault, a slice of pepperoni pizza from a group of children (Jerry Dewayne Williams, four previous non-violent felonies, sentence later reduced to six years).

I would like to direct your attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-stri ... California, which is just a little further down the page. Specifically this quotation:

Generally, three strikes laws have been empirically substantiated as having negligible impacts on overall recidivism rates amongst the general population, a trend substantiated by the weak correlation found between demonstrative prison sentences and general or individuals deterrence.

e_i_pi wrote:I would like to direct your attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-stri ... California, which is just a little further down the page. Specifically this quotation:

Generally, three strikes laws have been empirically substantiated as having negligible impacts on overall recidivism rates amongst the general population, a trend substantiated by the weak correlation found between demonstrative prison sentences and general or individuals deterrence.

pi, I did see that, but that was not the point. TheProwler cited an example and said that the person would never get life. I just wanted to point out that it has happened, not that it should.

lancehoch wrote:I don't disagree with you. Maybe the rules do need a little more tweaking, but there are some factors to be considered. If the ladder is changed to be more lenient, DM still will not be allowed back, just like when the ladder was made less lenient people were not retroactively banned for past transgressions. I am sure that the admins will consider another adjustment to the ladder, if it is presented in a calm rational manner (like your posts have been).

It's a good thing you guys still stick to the "WE ARE ALWAYS RIGHT NO MATTER WHAT"-policy.

My issue is that DM's ban wasn't warranted even when you take the written rules as gospel. And I know you guys don't take them as gospel because of the inconsistent and frankly to the outsider random way they are applied. In my time here I've had a few 24h bans, a three day ban, a week ban, a permanent ban and a shitton of warnings, and they were all varied a great deal. For example, the last ban I had was for 3 days because the previous one was for 1 day, even though I had a lot of bans already. And I don't even know what on earth I was banned for.

Anyway, back to DM, this ban was particularly bollocks because he didn't actually do anything wrong. Unless you interpret the rules in a very strict way. But since that would mean half the posters are guilty of that offense I think it's a bit silly to do that.

I was simply using it as an example to contradict TheProwler's point that a shoplifter would never get a life sentence, the person cited in the example received two consecutive sentences of 25 to life for shopifting. I feel that my post was very on point. Now, was TheProwler's analogy the best one to use, probably not, and if so, then my example is meaningless. But, given the example used, I was presenting a counter-argument.

In most lawsystems his argument would've held up. Sure it maybe wasn't smart to say "never ever" but in general people don't agree with cutting of hands for stealing a bread or hanging till death for stealing a horse.

Also, let's check for what these warnings and bans of DM really mean.

He was warned for racism back in April of 2008,

Since I know DM is not a racist, and since I myself got an actual ban for racism when I said "black people" I tend to take this sort of thing with a grain of salt.

was warned for telling people to post porn,

You get a warning for that????

created multiple topics purely to spam the forums,

Again, grain of salt since I know of several occasions where threads were merged and/or locked because the mods deemed them spam when they weren't. Hell, one occasion was very recent even.

logged into another account to post in the forums,

Which was never against the rules in the first place. We got a multi-bust for breaking a non-existent rule.

posted personal information on more than one occasion,

I am only aware of one occasion and at that time it wasn't even against the rules. That didn't stop the mods from banning him but since your position is all about "THE RULES AGREE WITH THE BAN" I'd say it's relevant.

Most of those are considered major offenses right now. Granted, he did almost all of them before the change in punishment rules,

He did several of them before it was even illegal.

He was told on at least two occasions, by two different moderators that he was well on his way to a permanent ban, in May and November of last year.

And then he went away for some time, came back and was banned for some trivial reason.

and too bad that I didn't get to push the button.

Well that sure sounds impartial there.

lancehoch wrote: Yes, and too bad that I didn't get to push the button.

Nobody likes you and you're an awful moderator. Stop posting now, for your own good.

See, we need Optimus Prime to come back and dialogue with us. You, on the other hand, need to shut up.

For your own good.

You weren't doing too badly for yourself there for a while lance, I'm willing to let that remark about "pushing the button" slide and continue a reasonable discussion, but maybe you should apologize for it even so in case others are not so lenient.

Snorri rather nicely demolished your whole list of DM's previous infractions, I agree with him on every point. Furthermore, DM was often banned for things that other people wouldn't even have received a warning for.

I am sorry that you don't want me here pimpdave. If you do not want to read my posts, then don't. I don't get it though, if you think I am wrong and am digging myself into a hole, why not let me? I can't see any reason that you wouldn't want me to post unless you realize that I am right, but don't want to admit it.

Snorri, here are the threads that he was cited for:
racism/bigotry: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=48096
spam: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=69431
C&A spam: viewtopic.php?f=239&t=66477

I think those are what they were called. As to logging into another account, yes, it was an unwritten rule before you guys got in trouble for it. However, it is a form of having a second account and account hijacking. There have also been players busted for only using an account to be funny in the forums. It was probably not the best idea for you guys to be doing. That being said, he was pushing boundaries and limits for two years, if not longer, and the administrators have finally had enough.

pimpdave wrote:

lancehoch wrote: Yes, and too bad that I didn't get to push the button.

Nobody likes you and you're an awful moderator. Stop posting now, for your own good.

See, we need Optimus Prime to come back and dialogue with us. You, on the other hand, need to shut up.

For your own good.

what the hell just ban this clown it is stupid to ban banning

lancehoch wrote:I am sorry that you don't want me here pimpdave. If you do not want to read my posts, then don't. I don't get it though, if you think I am wrong and am digging myself into a hole, why not let me? I can't see any reason that you wouldn't want me to post unless you realize that I am right, but don't want to admit it.

Where, exactly did you learn logic? Your powers of reason are equivalent to that of a raisin. That honestly makes no sense, whatsoever about me not wanting you to post.

What I want is someone who actually has authority, not some idiot puppy dog from the inner party coming out to making these arguments so incredibly retarded it comes across as a complete and intentional insult to our intelligence.

So, shut up and go get your boss, puppy. You didn't make the ban, you also can't string a thought together without sounding like you have no idea what you're talking about.

lancehoch wrote:

TheProwler wrote:...A person shoplifts and is found guilty...shortened
But there is no way this annoying prick is going to ever be executed or thrown into jail for more than a few months for shoplifting. He might get another year for stealing a car. But never, ever, life.

I would like to direct your attention to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law. Specifically this quotation:

Some unusual scenarios have arisen, particularly in California — the state punishes shoplifting and similar crimes involving over $500 in property as felony petty theft if the person who committed the crime has a prior conviction for any form of theft, including robbery or burglary. As a result, some defendants have been given sentences of 25 years to life in prison for such crimes as shoplifting golf clubs (Gary Ewing, previous strikes for burglary and robbery with a knife), nine videotapes (Leandro Andrade, received double sentence of 25 year-to-life for 2 counts of shoplifting), or, along with a violent assault, a slice of pepperoni pizza from a group of children (Jerry Dewayne Williams, four previous non-violent felonies, sentence later reduced to six years).

So you agree that someone should receive a double sentence of 25 years-to-life for 2 counts of shoplifting?

Excellent work.

wiki "Common Sense" sometime, just for kicks.