cRPG

cRPG => General Discussion => Topic started by: Lt_Anders on April 02, 2012, 06:51:08 pm

Title: Concerning Jar's Ban length. (resolved?)
Post by: Lt_Anders on April 02, 2012, 06:51:08 pm
This concerns This thread: http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,29191.0.html

I wouldn't post this if I didn't see a form of injustice going on. Noobie, and most will agree, was being a massive delayer, leecher, valour farmer for awhile, and he was banned multiple times and long amounts for it. Now, Jar is ALSO a repeat offender (http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,26257.msg381770.html#msg381770), but on this ban(his third(?) of the kind) He gets off with a 24 hour ban per this post. (http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,29191.msg429066.html#msg429066)

I would like to ask that another admin review the case and then either Uphold ganner's ban and explain why there is "Seeming" favoritism.(he could just be to lazy to look and see if Jar's a repeat offender), or Either give proper punishment to repeat offender. If ganner sees this and says, he didn't realize, and I should stop being a dick, i'll shut up. But in the interest of FAIRNESS, if others get long bans for MULTIPLE offenses, then so should jar.


Main reason i got angry was I informed ganner in game, and this was his respones:
(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)

All I really want from Ganner is "Hey I didn't realize it, and Made a mistake, Bans going to stay 24hr though."
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Kreczor on April 02, 2012, 06:55:44 pm
This concerns This thread: http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,29191.0.html

I wouldn't post this if I didn't see a form of injustice going on. Noobie, and most will agree, was being a massive delayer, leecher, valour farmer for awhile, and he was banned multiple times and long amounts for it. Now, Jar is ALSO a repeat offender (http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,26257.msg381770.html#msg381770), but on this ban(his third(?) of the kind) He gets off with a 24 hour ban per this post. (http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,29191.msg429066.html#msg429066)

I would like to ask that another admin review the case and then either Uphold ganner's ban and explain why there is "Seeming" favoritism.(he could just be to lazy to look and see if Jar's a repeat offender), or Either give proper punishment to repeat offender. If ganner sees this and says, he didn't realize, and I should stop being a dick, i'll shut up. But in the interest of FAIRNESS, if others get long bans for MULTIPLE offenses, then so should jar.

Why are you such a fucking girl scout god damn. All you do is post ban requests three times a week because you can't handle being butthurt over having a teamate leech. Grow the fuck up.
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Chris_P_Bacon on April 02, 2012, 07:02:42 pm
Why are you such a fucking girl scout god damn. All you do is post ban requests three times a week because you can't handle being butthurt over having a teamate leech. Grow the fuck up.
Anders has only posted in the ban forums 19 times. And he didn't start all of those threads and most of the posts were in response to comments that came later in the thread. I do not disagree that he is a girlscout though, I hear he makes fantastic cookies.
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Lt_Anders on April 02, 2012, 07:05:30 pm
Why are you such a fucking girl scout god damn. All you do is post ban requests three times a week because you can't handle being butthurt over having a teamate leech. Grow the fuck up.

Actually that's my first ban request in....2 weeks.

And whats wrong with taking pictures and showing people that someone is clearly breaking rules, and NOT helping teammates. I'm only ASKING for someone else to review the evidence and either uphold the ban, or just say, ganner was right and why. You can't discuss in the ban thread section, and I'd PERSONALLY not want to flame/troll/etc. ganner, i just want FAIRNESS here.

(btw Boy scouts are better)
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Kreczor on April 02, 2012, 07:06:17 pm
Anders has only posted in the ban forums 19 times. And he didn't start all of those threads and most of the posts were in response to comments that came later in the thread. I do not disagree that he is a girlscout though, I hear he makes fantastic cookies.
I just find he's out on a witch hunt against even the tiniest of mistakes. While I agree that it is against the rules and people should be getting punished for said rule breaking, there is no need to go out on a limb just to get them banned.
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Lt_Anders on April 02, 2012, 07:09:33 pm
I just find he's out on a witch hunt against even the tiniest of mistakes. While I agree that it is against the rules and people should be getting punished for said rule breaking, there is no need to go out on a limb just to get them banned.

Perhaps you are right, but tking and leeching are perhaps the 2 biggest things that irk me. Both hurt your team, and can cause several people to NOT enjoy their playing time.
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Dexxtaa on April 02, 2012, 07:14:35 pm
Perhaps you are right, but tking and leeching are perhaps the 2 biggest things that irk me. Both hurt your team, and can cause several people to NOT enjoy their playing time.

You picked two of the worst things to be particularly annoyed with in this game.

But you do have a point, and I'm sure there will be heavier repurcussions for repeated offenses.
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: BADPLAYERold on April 02, 2012, 07:24:17 pm
people who post ban requests are bigger griefers than the so called griefers themselves. real talk~
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: dynamike on April 02, 2012, 07:26:31 pm
Anders, you make a thread, asking for a ban for Jar and a warning for Veto and Leo --> You get a ban for Jar and a warning for Veto and Leo.

You make another thread, comparing Jar to one of most frequent offenders in NA and want what exactly? A longer ban? A stronger warning to the others? Ganner's adminship to be questioned? Prove favoritism amongst admins? Admins to speak against each other?

WAKE UP MAN!

This is a free online mod you are playing, with volunteer admins, getting NOTHING for the work they are doing. It's not the fucking supreme court with professional lawyers upholding rules ironed out over years with precedent cases and juries to support decision making!

There is no favoritism. There is no need to call out admins repeatedly if they are clearly trying to do the best they can. There is no need to try and pitch admins against each other.

There is just decisions made by people like you and me who do the best they can and are never being thanked for it.


This one goes out to everyone:
Stop your campaigns to alienate our admins while we still have any left!
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Lt_Anders on April 02, 2012, 07:33:16 pm
Anders, you make a thread, asking for a ban for Jar and a warning for Veto and Leo --> You get a ban for Jar and a warning for Veto and Leo.

You make another thread, comparing Jar to one of most frequent offenders in NA and want what exactly? A longer ban? A stronger warning to the others? Ganner's adminship to be questioned? Prove favoritism amongst admins? Admins to speak against each other?

WAKE UP MAN!

This is a free online mod you are playing, with volunteer admins, getting NOTHING for the work they are doing. It's not the fucking supreme court with professional lawyers upholding rules ironed out over years with precedent cases and juries to support decision making!

There is no favoritism. There is no need to call out admins repeatedly if they are clearly trying to do the best they can. There is no need to try and pitch admins against each other.

There is just decisions made by people like you and me who do the best they can and are never being thanked for it.


This one goes out to everyone:
Stop your campaigns to alienate our admins while we still have any left!

I just asking for FAIRNESS. I said, that I understand Ganner MAY have just not cared to look up Jar's history, and COMPLETELY understand that. In my post, the only REASON I made this thread was entirely cause Ganner told me to fuk off. I wasn't attempting(he might see it that way now) to be a dick, but I only said to him "isn't your ban for jar a little to short for a repeat offender?"

But, I could be lieing my ass off and everyone would say, "Oh he's just a troll ignore him", But I would like to see SOMETHING of a statement why ganner made a (simple) mistake. A single, "Hey, I didn't realize that, but ban's going to stand, thank you for being a dick, now move along" and I'll shut up. Simple as that. Just Apologize and say you made a mistake. Is it so hard to do?
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Kreczor on April 02, 2012, 07:34:55 pm
Anders: Can I have a cookie Mom?
Mom: No.
Anders: Can I really not have a cookie mom?
Mom: No. Stop asking.
Anders: But can I really really not have a cookie? I really want one.
Mom: No. Shut the fuck up.
Anders: Dad can I have a cookie?
Dad: No. Shut the fuck up.

Seeing a trend?
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Digglez on April 02, 2012, 07:36:12 pm
pretty weak comebacks by Chaos, obviously because their member didnt get a HARSHER sentence for being a repeat offender.  Jar knows the rules, has been banned for it before, he should be getting 3 days to a week for being a fuckhead again
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Chris_P_Bacon on April 02, 2012, 07:36:39 pm
Anders: Can I have a cookie Mom?
Mom: No.
Anders: Can I really not have a cookie mom?
Mom: No. Stop asking.
Anders: But can I really really not have a cookie? I really want one.
Mom: No. Shut the fuck up.
Anders: Dad can I have a cookie?
Dad: No. Shut the fuck up.

Seeing a trend?
I think in this case it was more like
Anders: Can I have a cookie, mom?
Mom: Yeah, sure
Anders: Can I have another cookie?
Mom: No, fuck off.
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Rikthor on April 02, 2012, 07:37:30 pm
pretty weak comebacks by Chaos, obviously because their member didnt get a HARSHER sentence for being a repeat offender.  Jar knows the rules, has been banned for it before, he should be getting 3 days to a week for being a fuckhead again

So should you and Anders for being sperging blowhards, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen.
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Chris_P_Bacon on April 02, 2012, 07:38:56 pm
So should you and Anders for being sperging blowhards, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen.
Hey, I never saw anything in the rules that says you can't be a sperging blowhard.
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Rikthor on April 02, 2012, 07:40:10 pm
Hey, I never saw anything in the rules that says you can't be a sperging blowhard.

got to read between the lines
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: dynamike on April 02, 2012, 07:41:06 pm
I just asking for FAIRNESS. I said, that I understand Ganner MAY have just not cared to look up Jar's history, and COMPLETELY understand that. In my post, the only REASON I made this thread was entirely cause Ganner told me to fuk off. I wasn't attempting(he might see it that way now) to be a dick, but I only said to him "isn't your ban for jar a little to short for a repeat offender?"

But, I could be lieing my ass off and everyone would say, "Oh he's just a troll ignore him", But I would like to see SOMETHING of a statement why ganner made a (simple) mistake. A single, "Hey, I didn't realize that, but ban's going to stand, thank you for being a dick, now move along" and I'll shut up. Simple as that. Just Apologize and say you made a mistake. Is it so hard to do?
(click to show/hide)

Anders there are no defined rules about increasing severity of bans for repeat offenders (however you want to classify that).

There are admins making judgement calls as best as they can!

And then there are players requesting bans for others, calling the admin out on it when a decision is made and then being mad about the admin not friendly chit-chatting to them about it in game. Really man, how do you not get that?

It absolutely does not matter to me who the offenders are or who the admins are - in general this pitching admins against each other and making their lives miserable needs to stop or noone will do the job anymore!
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Lt_Anders on April 02, 2012, 07:46:16 pm
You are right, yes. There are no defined rules about increasing ban severity, that's why repeat tkers get essay bans rather than 24h bans continually.

I agree, I'm going overboard here, but I just want ganner to say "Hey I don't care, He got banned, end of story", or "I didn't bother checking everything out, but I don't care anymore cause you is sperglord".

I think i need to shut up. I'd rather not start this "witch hunt" on ganner when it could just be a simple he doesn't care to look things up on his own. Admins do it for free, but they are STILL just as accountable as we are. Several admins had their powers stripped after breaking the rules, something that used to NOT happen when we had Community servers, and it's entirely good. Ganner is a good admin, and he makes mistakes, I'd just like his story on this. Perhaps I should have gone PMs first, but I'm a spergelord and my Shogun 2 not working atm.  :cry:
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Dexxtaa on April 02, 2012, 07:47:06 pm
Everyone calm the fuck down. This has been discussed in the admin forums since the original post of this thread.

Everything has been under evaluation since the inception of this thread.

Feel free to continue throwing insults back and forth though.
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Lt_Anders on April 02, 2012, 07:48:10 pm
Everyone calm the fuck down. This has been discussed in the admin forums since the original post of this thread.

Everything has been under evaluation since the inception of this thread.

Feel free to continue throwing insults back and forth though.

Can ganner just come out and say "You is sperglord anders, now shut up?" I'd shut up then.
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Christo on April 02, 2012, 07:48:35 pm
Daily NA drama thread.

Enjoy.
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Lichen on April 02, 2012, 07:50:36 pm


WAKE UP MAN!

This is a free online mod you are playing, with volunteer admins, getting NOTHING for the work they are doing. It's not the fucking supreme court with professional lawyers upholding rules ironed out over years with precedent cases and juries to support decision making!
crpg mod is SERIOUS BUSINESS!!!!

There is no favoritism. There is no need to call out admins repeatedly if they are clearly trying to do the best they can. There is no need to try and pitch admins against each other.

There is just decisions made by people like you and me who do the best they can and are never being thanked for it.
I don't know about this instance but I'm sure favoritism exists in some or many admins...and there's nothing really wrong with that IMO because admins are PEOPLE too. As long as people are having fun fuck the rules and 'technicalities'. Really, why do some players care so much about what OTHER players are doing unless they are directly affected such as being tk'd or teamwounded? Me personally I couldn't care less if some players are 'valor farming' or even leeching. This isn't a 'job' so why don't some stop trying to treat it like one by having all these rigid rules. I couldn't care less if there is 'revenge' teamwounding/killing. Get a life people. This is a video GAME, don't ever take it too serious. The goal should be laughs and fun.


Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Dexxtaa on April 02, 2012, 07:51:11 pm
Can ganner just come out and say "You is sperglord anders, now shut up?" I'd shut up then.

There are many people besides of Ganner who would like to say that to you, but are mostly too respectful, Anders.

If Ganner were to say it, who knows what floodgates he'd open. I'd say leave it at your civil discussion and veiled insults.
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: larlek on April 02, 2012, 07:51:16 pm
I've said it before and I will say it again. Admins should be rotated. No one person should remain admin for a long period of time. Power corrupts the weak. There should be a random selection of 5 new admins every 2 weeks or so. All bans should also need the public support. If someone hands out a ban and the community do not agree that the ban is valid then the ban given by the admin will be cut in half or something. Rep systems will need to used so that only good posters can take part in the ban threads and that trolls can't go in a ban thread and sabotage the admins attempt at banning someone.
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Kreczor on April 02, 2012, 07:55:35 pm
I've said it before and I will say it again. Admins should be rotated. No one person should remain admin for a long period of time. Power corrupts the weak. There should be a random selection of 5 new admins every 2 weeks or so. All bans should also need the public support. If someone hands out a ban and the community do not agree that the ban is valid then the ban given by the admin will be cut in half or something. Rep systems will need to used so that only good posters can take part in the ban threads and that trolls can't go in a ban thread and sabotage the admins attempt at banning someone.
and what happens in Troyicides case?
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: bigsean on April 02, 2012, 07:56:27 pm
another nail in the coffin
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Lt_Anders on April 02, 2012, 07:56:42 pm
There are many people besides of Ganner who would like to say that to you, but are mostly too respectful, Anders.

If Ganner were to say it, who knows what floodgates he'd open. I'd say leave it at your civil discussion and veiled insults.

I've been trying not to be a dick. I Sincerely apologize to ganner if he feels I've offended him.

Sorry Ganner.

@ idlewild: Screw off go troll somewhere else.
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: CrazyCracka420 on April 02, 2012, 07:58:24 pm
pretty weak comebacks by Chaos, obviously because their member didnt get a HARSHER sentence for being a repeat offender.  Jar knows the rules, has been banned for it before, he should be getting 3 days to a week for being a fuckhead again

It's either favoritism or an admin not looking at the past offenses of the player.  Both are inexcusable. 

I don't know why anyone would have a problem with this being brought up, unless they have a personal interest in it.
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Dexxtaa on April 02, 2012, 07:59:00 pm
Remember that admins are still people. We have biases and preferences.

Being an admin is a service, not a privilege. We try to remain indifferent to the issues at hand, but we are still players in the community.


(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Goretooth on April 02, 2012, 07:59:44 pm
wow only 24 hours for repeat offender? lol my second ban was for 3 days and the next was for 5 days.
I don't like anders at all but he's good at what hes does and brings up a good point with this thread.
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Chris_P_Bacon on April 02, 2012, 08:00:06 pm
Remember that admins are still people. We have biases and preferences.

Being an admin is a service, not a privilege. We try to remain indifferent to the issues at hand, but we are still players in the community.


(click to show/hide)
I smell a redditor, and I approve good sir.
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Dexxtaa on April 02, 2012, 08:00:17 pm
wow only 24 hours for repeat offender? lol my second ban was for 3 days and the next was for 5 days.

Everyone calm the fuck down. This has been discussed in the admin forums since the original post of this thread.

Everything has been under evaluation since the inception of this thread.

Feel free to continue throwing insults back and forth though.
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: larlek on April 02, 2012, 08:02:18 pm
and what happens in Troyicides case?


In troycides case it is a matter of getting unbanned, not getting banned. In his thread most people have voted 5 on his essay if I remember correctly.
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Kreczor on April 02, 2012, 08:03:11 pm

In troycides case it is a matter of getting unbanned, not getting banned. In his thread most people have voted 5 on his essay if I remember correctly.
It's pretty much even. He's a known autoblocker and strategus battle griefer. Let's let him play some more!
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: dynamike on April 02, 2012, 08:05:30 pm
Thanks Anders for reconsidering. I know admins like Ganner and even Dexxtroll are taking their jobs seriously and trying to do their best, yet I would not want to be in their shoes most of the time.


I don't like anders at all but he's good at what hes does and brings up a good point with this thread.

I don't like Goretooth at all and...

Well, no and.
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Lt_Anders on April 02, 2012, 08:10:10 pm
Thanks Anders for reconsidering. I know admins like Ganner and even Dexxtroll are taking their jobs seriously and trying to do their best, yet I would not want to be in their shoes most of the time.

I never once really wanted to piss on ganner, i really just wanted a bit of an answer. Perhaps asking over game was a bad idea, and I was a bit of a dick, perhaps. But I do apologize for any hard feelings i've caused ganner.

Play on.
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Kreczor on April 02, 2012, 08:11:54 pm
I never once really wanted to piss on ganner, i really just wanted a bit of an answer. Perhaps asking over game was a bad idea, and I was a bit of a dick, perhaps. But I do apologize for any hard feelings i've caused ganner.

Play on.
Just pm one of the other admins next time instead of taking me off my leash like that.

Apologies.
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: larlek on April 02, 2012, 08:12:30 pm
It's pretty much even. He's a known autoblocker and strategus battle griefer. Let's let him play some more!

The majority voted 5. It's democracy. He gets unbanned and if he ever does it again he gets a perma ban with no hope of ever returning. Simple. We lost nothing by unbanning him. If he decided to cheat again he will have wasted his last chance and he will be gone forever. The end. I don't want him unbanned, but the majority of people do.
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Dexxtaa on April 02, 2012, 08:14:47 pm
The majority voted 5. It's democracy. He gets unbanned and if he ever does it again he gets a perma ban with no hope of ever returning. Simple. We lost nothing by unbanning him. If he decided to cheat again he will have wasted his last chance and he will be gone forever. The end. I don't want him unbanned, but the majority of people do.

The majority are people who didn't actually take the time to read it, are his 'bros,' or are euros who have no idea who he is and think it'll be funny to let the bull loose in the china shoppe again.

Just saying.
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Chris_P_Bacon on April 02, 2012, 08:15:56 pm
The majority are people who didn't actually take the time to read it, are his 'bros,' or are euros who have no idea who he is and think it'll be funny to let the bull loose in the china shoppe again.

Just saying.
Personally I think only admins should have a valid say in the rating of unban essays.
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Dexxtaa on April 02, 2012, 08:17:39 pm
Personally I think only admins should have a valid say in the rating of unban essays.

We do.

Either way, I'm glad this thread resolved itself because of civil and mature people.

On to the next bit of the show "NA Drama for the Euro Pleasure" for the Euro's pleasure:

Idlewild : discuss.
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: larlek on April 02, 2012, 08:22:34 pm
The majority are people who didn't actually take the time to read it, are his 'bros,' or are euros who have no idea who he is and think it'll be funny to let the bull loose in the china shoppe again.

Just saying.

That's irrelevant. Do you think that most people who voted for obama knew anything about his policy or what a wreck of a president they were voting for? No. They voted for him because he is black and that was enough reason for them. The same can be said with the unban essay. People will vote yes just because they like what someone wrote or because they played with the guy one time but that's okay. A vote is a vote and the reason behind the vote is irrelevant. I don't think the guy should be unbanned but the majority does and that's all there is to it.
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Kreczor on April 02, 2012, 08:22:51 pm
Idlewild : discuss.

Who?
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Canary on April 02, 2012, 08:30:44 pm
To everyone quick to disparage certain admins for bias and favoritism:

We have a large admin team consisting of some very different people, some of whom are in the same clan and some of whom are in no clan at all. It's up to those admins to actually act.

Yes, there are a lot of admins associated with one clan. That does not mean that we can keep all of the other admins not associated with it from issuing punishment to people in that clan. It isn't the admin's fault when he's alone in his duties. If no one else is willing to take up the charge, well, someone is still doing it. There are worse alternatives.

This is a good example of why we have the "no-tamper" system for bans; that is, a ban issued by one admin is not to be removed by another. If someone wants to issue a longer ban, it's up to their discretion and won't be cut short by another.


Now, before you continue screaming your head off, let me just say: We're still discussing this and many other issues privately. We discuss quite a bit amongst ourselves, every major issue that comes up gets covered and retread and talked over many times. Just because you may only see one admin's input in a given ban request does not mean the NA admins aren't working together as a team.

(click to show/hide)
.
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Dexxtaa on April 02, 2012, 08:30:52 pm
That's irrelevant. Do you think that most people who voted for obama knew anything about his policy or what a wreck of a president they were voting for? No. They voted for him because he is black and that was enough reason for them. The same can be said with the unban essay. People will vote yes just because they like what someone wrote or because they played with the guy one time but that's okay. A vote is a vote and the reason behind the vote is irrelevant. I don't think the guy should be unbanned but the majority does and that's all there is to it.

Your argument is ridiculous. This isn't a national vote. The difference between that and this is the fact that we have the opportunity to look into it. A presidential vote does not have the ability to look into an event as close as we are able to as a community.

By your logic you're telling me that if I put up a permaban request against you, without knowing you or anything about you, and the request goes through, you will sit idly by and watch yourself get permabanned, because the hypothetical majority voted against you.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: larlek on April 02, 2012, 08:34:46 pm
Your argument is ridiculous. This isn't a national vote. The difference between that and this is the fact that we have the opportunity to look into it. A presidential vote does not have the ability to look into an event as close as we are able to as a community.

By your logic you're telling me that if I put up a permaban request against you, without knowing you or anything about you, and the request goes through, you will sit idly by and watch yourself get permabanned, because the hypothetical majority voted against you.

(click to show/hide)
If you poll banned me on a server and I was banned by majority vote then that would be that. A majority vote is the final say and always should be. The day we let a the minority decide the fate of the majority will be a bad day. Would I be happy? No. Would I fight the the ban by making an unban thread and also a ban thread for you? Yes.
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Canary on April 02, 2012, 08:47:33 pm
The day we let a the minority decide the fate of the majority will be a bad day.

The situation wouldn't be as drastic as this suggests, it'd be a small, trusted minority deciding the fate of an even smaller minority who's suspected of a grievous offense.

If you poll banned me on a server and I was banned by majority vote then that would be that. A majority vote is the final say and always should be.

Except that in this community, we literally have rules against misuse of "majority rules" situations. Poll abuse is not a tolerated thing, and just because a poll goes through doesn't make it right.

Would I be happy? No. Would I fight the the ban by making an unban thread and also a ban thread for you? Yes.

Wait, what exactly are you arguing, here? You seem to be against both things, now.
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: bigsean on April 02, 2012, 08:48:41 pm
obsessed with your betters dexxtaa? thanks for your attention
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Lt_Anders on April 02, 2012, 08:50:59 pm
(click to show/hide)
.

? Pm me what ya mean by this.

Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Rumblood on April 02, 2012, 08:52:13 pm
As was stated already, a discussion was had in the Admin chat from the get-go, and a couple Admins didn't have access to the tools from where they were posting at the time. It could have been any other Admin actually implementing the 24 hour ban
Its also no surprise that Anders was aware of and all over the "repeat offender" as he posted both ban requests. Not to mention that within minutes (seconds?) of the ban being implemented you were harassing the Admin in game about the ban length. (On an Alt no less, you think we memorize your Alt names? Legio DOES need to mind his own business, where Anders might have gotten a different response)
I wouldn't spend time in game arguing over a forum ban either.

About the same time, Canary posted in the Admin thread that he felt that 24 hours was too short and posted why (and not because of this thread). In other words, it was taking care of itself in the Admin forums.

Getting rather tired of these facetious "Admin bias" threads. Especially when my impression is that you've been sitting on that ban request thread pressing refresh every 5 seconds, chewing your fingernails to see if Jar was going to "get his due". Then off you go raging (again, just my impression) in game and then back raging on the forums to make an "Admin bias" thread instead of sending a PM to Ganner, or any other Admin, or posting in the Ban forums that "Hey, this guy has been a repeat offender and 24 hours is too short based on past decisions." and link to the previous thread.

I'm glad that you seem to have calmed down at this point. Next time send a PM to the Admin in question, or make a "Concerns about Jar's ban length" thread.


This is a free online mod you are playing, with volunteer admins, getting NOTHING for the work they are doing. It's not the fucking supreme court with professional lawyers upholding rules ironed out over years with precedent cases and juries to support decision making!
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Lt_Anders on April 02, 2012, 08:56:35 pm
I'm glad that you seem to have calmed down at this point. Next time send a PM to the Admin in question, or make a "Concerns about Jar's ban length" thread.

Yea, I never ment bias. I put a question mark in thread title, cause i was half "Huh?". But the message body was more of a "Hey, please look at this, i don't think it's right."

Also you're right about my alt. I've apologized to ganner and said Didn't mean to witch hunt him.
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Darkkarma on April 02, 2012, 09:01:23 pm
That's irrelevant. Do you think that most people who voted for obama knew anything about his policy or what a wreck of a president they were voting for? No. They voted for him because he is black and that was enough reason for them.

Thats why Jessie Jackson won when he ran
That's why Herman Cain is our presidential nominee of the republican party
Etc.

As for the rest of what you said, majority rules is not a perfect system whatsoever. Horse Crossbowmen would all be pretty much perpetually banned from servers here in NA for having so many people hate them. God knows how much trouble we have already with item balance because of how much of the community complains when a really popular item/play style gets nerfed/buffed. It has it's place and should certainly be taken into consideration when it comes to handling administrative decisions, but it should not be the sole deciding factor if it can be helped.

TL;DR: Your example was bad and I don't trust this community full of temperamental crybabies enough to let everything be handled through majority rule.
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Rumblood on April 02, 2012, 09:06:08 pm
Yea, I never ment bias. I put a question mark in thread title, cause i was half "Huh?". But the message body was more of a "Hey, please look at this, i don't think it's right."

Also you're right about my alt. I've apologized to ganner and said Didn't mean to witch hunt him.

I love you.  :D

This thread may be used to prove my love bias for Anders for any possible future infraction I overlook  :P
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Swifteye234 on April 02, 2012, 09:32:27 pm
pretty weak comebacks by Chaos, obviously because their member didnt get a HARSHER sentence for being a repeat offender.  Jar knows the rules, has been banned for it before, he should be getting 3 days to a week for being a fuckhead again

im gonna up that post in hopes that your epeen becomes less salty because bitch u angry
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Swifteye234 on April 02, 2012, 09:34:36 pm
wow only 24 hours for repeat offender? lol my second ban was for 3 days and the next was for 5 days.
I don't like anders at all but he's good at what hes does and brings up a good point with this thread.

guardian spaz would be so disappoint
Title: Re: Concerning Jar's Ban length. (resolved?)
Post by: Sir Ryden on April 02, 2012, 09:41:29 pm
I'm really fucking heterosexual, and by that I mean I'm gay. I don't mind if there is a ban request for someone, but when they post it up with all serious pants on and they do the best they can to get them banned, those people are the actual griefers imo like BAD said. It's an online game, I don't mind when I get tked. Even if it's intentional, but that's probably because I don't take this game seriously at all. I troll the fuck out of people because they get mad and tell me to grow up. Acting mature on the internet? I don't see why I would need to do that. I find more enjoyment in tking and delaying than actually taking this mod seriously nowadays anyways. Imo the people that post on the forums consistently about getting people banned for everything they do should calm down, it's not so much as Anders anyways. But Diggles and some others that I don't care enough to remember need to stop being butthurt babies over everything. They're the ones that need to grow the fuck up.
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Goretooth on April 02, 2012, 09:55:35 pm
guardian spaz would be so disappoint
lol your jars?
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Swifteye234 on April 02, 2012, 10:08:59 pm
lol your jars?

yuh
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: CrazyCracka420 on April 02, 2012, 10:15:59 pm
lol your jars?


Does that change what you said earlier (which made sense).

It shouldn't matter who the player was (jars).  This is about admins being inconsistent with their punishments (I honestly don't think ganner would show favoritism, I'm assuming he didn't know about previous bans...at least I like to give most people the benefit of the doubt until they give me a reason not to).
Title: Re: Clear Admin Bias?
Post by: Swifteye234 on April 02, 2012, 10:17:54 pm

Does that change what you said earlier (which made sense).

It shouldn't matter who the player was (jars).  This is about admins being inconsistent with their punishments (I honestly don't think ganner would show favoritism, I'm assuming he didn't know about previous bans...at least I like to give most people the benefit of the doubt until they give me a reason not to).

no ganner didn't it was karma who banned me the other two times
Title: Re: Concerning Jar's Ban length. (resolved?)
Post by: Miley on April 02, 2012, 11:00:40 pm
I don't get the screenshot, but anyways, GANNER HAD THE CLANTAG OF BADMIN FOR A REASON.
Title: Re: Concerning Jar's Ban length. (resolved?)
Post by: Grumbs on April 02, 2012, 11:04:14 pm
Wow..you guys actually let a clan self admin their members? It doesn't matter how unbiased you may actually feel you are, there will always be the thought in people's mind of how fishy that all my be. There should be some obvious rules regarding clans deciding the fate of fellow clan members. There will always be either a little bias or at the very least the assumption of bias on the playerbase's part. Either way it does harm to the image of the clan and the impartiality of admins

You want people to follow rules? Well ensure a fair environment for everyone no matter who they are, and encourage people not to do stuff like valour farm or whatever with decent ban lengths especially for repeat offenders. I don't' even know why people get so many chances in this game..anywhere else and you would be gone
Title: Re: Concerning Jar's Ban length. (resolved?)
Post by: Dexxtaa on April 02, 2012, 11:06:37 pm
Good thing ^this guy doesn't make the rules .
Title: Re: Concerning Jar's Ban length. (resolved?)
Post by: Grumbs on April 02, 2012, 11:07:56 pm
Well I don't have to play on NA ofc, and love the attitude from another admin there, GJ
Title: Re: Concerning Jar's Ban length. (resolved?)
Post by: Dexxtaa on April 02, 2012, 11:08:50 pm
Well I don't have to play on NA ofc, and love the attitude from another admin there, GJ

Thank you.

http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,29191.msg429254.html#msg429254
Title: Re: Concerning Jar's Ban length. (resolved?)
Post by: Darkkarma on April 02, 2012, 11:12:03 pm
Not only was the ban agreed upon by admins in and out of chaos, but they all felt the action taken was completely appropriate. Ganner just happened to be the one who issued the website ban. I'm probably skating up hill as it is trying to explain this to you guys, but yeah.
Title: Re: Concerning Jar's Ban length. (resolved?)
Post by: Kivlov on April 02, 2012, 11:15:40 pm
So you all agreed that he deserved a light punishment because he's Jar? I see no-name players TK 1 person after a round as a joke and get a warning from pink chat about TKing but then someone that's even somewhat of a named player can get away with 3 blatant TK's. This kind of shit needs to stop and rules be enforced on everybody, not just the unwashed masses (or not at all! I personally don't mind the TKing after a round unless I picked something up in which case BLOCK.)

Also agreed, ganner is a badmin. (Not saying this because of this thread.)
Title: Re: Concerning Jar's Ban length. (resolved?)
Post by: Rumblood on April 02, 2012, 11:29:44 pm
So you all agreed that he deserved a light punishment because he's Jar?

No, the standard punishment was agreed upon, until it was pointed out by an Admin in the admin thread that it was Jar with his past and attitude about it, and then that made the penalty worse
Title: Re: Concerning Jar's Ban length. (resolved?)
Post by: Darkkarma on April 02, 2012, 11:32:40 pm
So you all agreed that he deserved a light punishment because he's Jar? I see no-name players TK 1 person after a round as a joke and get a warning from pink chat about TKing but then someone that's even somewhat of a named player can get away with 3 blatant TK's. This kind of shit needs to stop and rules be enforced on everybody, not just the unwashed masses (or not at all! I personally don't mind the TKing after a round unless I picked something up in which case BLOCK.)

Also agreed, ganner is a badmin. (Not saying this because of this thread.)

Well I can't speak for other admins but I know most of us ban team wounders or at least warn them regardless of who they are. I don't know what admin(s) you're referring to, so I can't really respond to your claim one way or the other aside from saying it is off topic. What's more, jar received two very lengthy bans for his last two infractions. Also, given how blatant and severe the trolling in this instance turned out to be going by the logs, it was extended. Punitive extensions hardly ever get added onto bans unless it is someone with a history so Im not sure what more you people want.  CHAOS also handled the issue internally being that he is a clan member but quite frankly, how we handled it is no one's business but ours.
Title: Re: Concerning Jar's Ban length. (resolved?)
Post by: Grumbs on April 02, 2012, 11:43:26 pm
Not only was the ban agreed upon by admins in and out of chaos, but they all felt the action taken was completely appropriate. Ganner just happened to be the one who issued the website ban. I'm probably skating up hill as it is trying to explain this to you guys, but yeah.

Still don't see why you think its OK to even have a member of the same clan involved in the decision process for a ban. This is so obvious, its just not the done thing. It will either lead to bias and favouritism OR at least create an image of bias/favouritism. Either way it doesn't make you guys look good in the least
Title: Re: Concerning Jar's Ban length. (resolved?)
Post by: KaMiKaZe_JoE on April 02, 2012, 11:44:49 pm
It's a game. Drink more and care less please.

Also, nerf cav.
Title: Re: Concerning Jar's Ban length. (resolved?)
Post by: Darkkarma on April 02, 2012, 11:50:39 pm
Still don't see why you think its OK to even have a member of the same clan involved in the decision process for a ban. This is so obvious, its just not the done thing. It will either lead to bias and favouritism OR at least create an image of bias/favouritism. Either way it doesn't make you guys look good in the least

To be perfectly honest if people really were as irrational as you just suggested they were (which I don't think they are) we'd be damned if we did and damned if we didn't. At the risk of sounding like a condescending prick, I suggest you pay less attention to who is administering the ban (especially when they are doing it without any bias and consistently) and thank your lucky stars that you've got a group of guys that not only take this seriously, but do so by sitting around sometimes debating and arguing with one another on the admin forum regarding decisions and what to do in certain situations as if we were being paid to do it. If people want to make baseless assumptions about us or our character/judgement then they are free to do so. Don't expect us to care until you bring proof though.
Title: Re: Concerning Jar's Ban length. (resolved?)
Post by: Grumbs on April 03, 2012, 12:03:41 am
I'm just saying you should cover your own asses if you know what I mean. If an admin seems to be lenient to a fellow clan member again you will get similar responses from people, whether he actually was lenient or not. People will assume bias and favouritism and you would obviously prevent the possibility of it actually happening

Anyway, I appreciate the work admins put in and I didn't mean to come across too negatively.
Title: Re: Concerning Jar's Ban length. (resolved?)
Post by: Darkkarma on April 03, 2012, 12:11:14 am
Trust me, it does cross our minds. We do take this job pretty seriously and we want to make sure that we've got transparency here(it's why I like to take so much time to elaborate on what happened in instances like this) It was actually a CHAOS guy that brought this particular issue up in the admin board and urged that a decision be reached on how to handle this one lest some of the more active NA admins usually all over stuff like this come across as biased or playing favorites.

(click to show/hide)

The last thing we want us for the community to feel as if this is how we view ourselves as admins. We aren't trying to be thought police, but we are trying to make sure that this community stays active and a generally good environment to play in(we have a hard enough time doing that without having constant in game griefing running rampant). Lord knows we mess up from time to time though, and that's why we encourage feedback threads like these! Civil discussion is always good.
Title: Re: Concerning Jar's Ban length. (resolved?)
Post by: Smoothrich on April 03, 2012, 12:21:38 am
Everyone was waiting around for logs to be updated or eyewitnesses to post because honestly the ban thread didn't have that good of evidence, the whole situation wasn't clear.  Ganner got sick of everyone waiting around when we concluded that Jar was the one who deserved a ban so he threw up a 24 hour ban.

Shortly after Canary posted his investigation of the logs and saw all the complaints and Jar admitting to exploiting the map to be last alive repeatedly so his ban was extended.

Handled pretty well. 

Sadly 9/10 admins we have that still play the game are Chaos ahah so even if it looks like it's biased favoritism or something literally every admin stopped playing cRPG except the chaos ones and less then 5 non chaos players.  I have suggested some people to Shik and I think he might make some new NON chaos admins soon so don't worry yall the tyrannical Chaocracy of the official servers will one day soon end
Title: Re: Concerning Jar's Ban length. (resolved?)
Post by: Earthdforce on April 03, 2012, 12:25:50 am
Sadly 9/10 admins we have that still play the game are Chaos ahah so even if it looks like it's biased favoritism or something literally every admin stopped playing cRPG except the chaos ones and less then 5 non chaos players.

It wasn't always like this, a bunch of the admins were also forced to step down, for vague reasons, as I recall.
Title: Re: Concerning Jar's Ban length. (resolved?)
Post by: Darkkarma on April 03, 2012, 12:27:59 am
"A handful" Is more appropriate I think. I'm pretty sure I could count the number of admins that had their rights removed on one hand.

The admin player base is just riddled with inactivity. The majority of admins in game are either Hospitaller or Chaos, with the latter having slightly more as admins.
Title: Re: Concerning Jar's Ban length. (resolved?)
Post by: Smoothrich on April 03, 2012, 12:30:19 am
If you poll banned me on a server and I was banned by majority vote then that would be that. A majority vote is the final say and always should be. The day we let a the minority decide the fate of the majority will be a bad day. Would I be happy? No. Would I fight the the ban by making an unban thread and also a ban thread for you? Yes.

cRPG isn't a direct democracy it is more like an absolute monarchy headed by chadz where his appointees delegate responsibilities to people that are deemed worthy of merit, who pick their own teams, etc.  Direct democracy is horrible and if you were American aka enlightened perhaps you would know the philosophical and sociological question of the "Tyranny of the majority" coined by our founding fathers.  We can just look at the southern American states as examples where majorities disenfranchised minorities (poor whites and blacks) for a hundred years AFTER the civil war.  The point of civil rights is to PROTECT minorities from overwhelming, often oppressive majorities.

An example would be if majorities controlled cRPG, all horse crossbowmen would be perma banned from the game.  As a proponent of cRPG Freedom, I may not have to enjoy your playstyle, but I will protect to the death your right to play it.
Title: Re: Concerning Jar's Ban length. (resolved?)
Post by: Lt_Anders on April 03, 2012, 12:35:35 am
Why isn't this thread locked yet?
Title: Re: Concerning Jar's Ban length. (resolved?)
Post by: oprah_winfrey on April 03, 2012, 12:40:32 am
cRPG isn't a direct democracy it is more like an absolute monarchy headed by chadz where his appointees delegate responsibilities to people that are deemed worthy of merit, who pick their own teams, etc.  Direct democracy is horrible and if you were American aka enlightened perhaps you would know the philosophical and sociological question of the "Tyranny of the majority" coined by our founding fathers.  We can just look at the southern American states as examples where majorities disenfranchised minorities (poor whites and blacks) for a hundred years AFTER the civil war.  The point of civil rights is to PROTECT minorities from overwhelming, often oppressive majorities.

An example would be if majorities controlled cRPG, all horse crossbowmen would be perma banned from the game.  As a proponent of cRPG Freedom, I may not have to enjoy your playstyle, but I will protect to the death your right to play it.

Ummmm What? The American colonies were founded as a way to escape a monarchy. The USA has checks and balances, which is not present in crpg. And then you finish it off by a modified quote from Voltaire, a french philosopher.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Concerning Jar's Ban length. (resolved?)
Post by: Kivlov on April 03, 2012, 12:43:09 am
Ummmm What? The American colonies were founded as a way to escape a monarchy. The USA has checks and balances, which is not present in crpg. And then you finish it off by a modified quote from Voltaire, a french philosopher.  :rolleyes:
Weren't they founded because the British/Spanish/French were like "Lol free land over hurr"?
Title: Re: Concerning Jar's Ban length. (resolved?)
Post by: Smoothrich on April 03, 2012, 12:56:29 am
Ummmm What? The American colonies were founded as a way to escape a monarchy. The USA has checks and balances, which is not present in crpg. And then you finish it off by a modified quote from Voltaire, a french philosopher.  :rolleyes:

Voltaire was an enlightenment thinker, and putting full confidence in the majority opinion to be the correct one is about as unenlightened as you can be.  Also, that isn't a Voltaire quote, it is a random english author's quote who was summing up what he felt Voltaire stood for.  America, and the NA cRPG servers, are not a democracy.

We don't have elections for cRPG admins either we are appointees.  chadz is an emperor of all communities by divine right (literally the creator) and I consider Shik our enlightened Philosopher Queen of NA/Head Of the Admins, and Shik bases his appointees on merit, experience, and character.  Then, the admin team makes their own interpretation of the Espu and cmp-penned constitution of cRPG rules to best of their abilities to uphold the original vision of chadz and the game he created.

Also, the history of colonialism of the Americas is sadly not one of freedom, but of religious intolerance, greed, extreme racism, and a never ending need for power that drives so much of history.
Title: Re: Concerning Jar's Ban length. (resolved?)
Post by: Havoco on April 03, 2012, 01:05:49 am
Anders u should be able to lock the thread yourself.