[NA] EyeBeat

[Digglez]

I did warn hence why I did the two hour temp ban.

You were not banned.  Please tell my why you are so upset?   

I thought it was a great call.  Then again maybe that is why you and anders aren't admins...   

Ya a great call that isnt against any of the written rules, which is obviously why you cant back up anything you're saying.  Good job losing all creditably.

[Lt_Anders]

I thought it was a great call.  Then again maybe that is why you and anders aren't admins...   

Hoh? Actually, I was an admin before. This is why i'm far more picky over the calls admin makes, and more likely to post threads. I choose NOT to be an admin anymore cause it's a shit job and just not worth it anymore.

You know you actually have the worst rating as an NA admin eyebeat? Even smooth has a better rating than you do. This doesn't help things.

[ednos]

Everyone stopped after he got banned.  Sometimes an example has to be made.

This is from the "UNBAN SEMENstormBITCHYOUAINT" topic, which you closed to prevent the community from sharing criticism of your ability to exercise good judgment with your authority. I'm curious why an example had to be made, and of what? An example of someone not breaking the rules, which is made by a temporary ban? If you start banning people for two hours for couching, I bet you won't see any more couching--but they stop to avoid the ban, not because they have some moral compulsion to a rule that exists in your mind for a few minutes. The point I'm making here, if it's not nauseatingly clear, is that people stopped engaging in perfectly legal behavior for the same reason that most people will obey any arbitrary rule you make up on the spot if you wield enough authority, like a firearm (or a banhammer).

[EyeBeat]

This is from the "UNBAN SEMENstormBITCHYOUAINT" topic, which you closed to prevent the community from sharing criticism of your ability to exercise good judgment with your authority. I'm curious why an example had to be made, and of what? An example of someone not breaking the rules, which is made by a temporary ban? If you start banning people for two hours for couching, I bet you won't see any more couching--but they stop to avoid the ban, not because they have some moral compulsion to a rule that exists in your mind for a few minutes. The point I'm making here, if it's not nauseatingly clear, is that people stopped engaging in perfectly legal behavior for the same reason that most people will obey any arbitrary rule you make up on the spot if you wield enough authority, like a firearm (or a banhammer).

I am sorry you disagree with my decision for the 2 hour ban.

Please do not scroll "bundle of sticks" in chat after I said "Hey stop posting "bundle of sticks" and scrolling the chat" in the admin chat.  I just picked the one that scrolled it the most.  Afterwards everyone stopped.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


The thread got closed because the ban was well over with.

All feedback should be posted in this thread.

Looking forward to your reply.

You know you actually have the worst rating as an NA admin eyebeat? Even smooth has a better rating than you do. This doesn't help things.

I am well aware.  I am also well aware many of those votes were not because of how I use my admin powers but because of angry players/clans that dislike me for uncovering some actions that they took part in to the higher powers that be.  I love this mod and am all for the longevity of it or else I wouldn't of donated 100 dollars towards it.  Scrolling "bundle of sticks" over and over in chat is something I think should be dealt with.

If you think otherwise then I guess we agree to disagree. 

[Lt_Anders]

Smooth has more votes, but you have a worse: I hate you rating. You actually have a YES from me.

Either way, agree to disagree.

[ednos]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Deal with it? Why even have this thread or forum if players just need to accept abuse from the administrators? This sort of callousness doesn't jive with any sort of authority if you want a healthy community. You haven't even tried to come up with a good response to your criticism over the ban case I referred to in my previous post.

I love this mod and am all for the longevity of it or else I wouldn't of donated 100 dollars towards it.

Everyone here loves it, or we wouldn't play it for hours upon hours. Your (now pharisaic) donation doesn't actually indicate that you love it more or less than any other player here, and it certainly doesn't entitle you to make up rules.

Scrolling "bundle of sticks" over and over in chat is something I think should be dealt with.

If you think otherwise then I guess we agree to disagree.

Personally, I would prefer never to hear or see that word used again, as it's been spoiled by religious fanatics, but you're an administrator, and your job is to deal with players who break the rules. Your job is not to create new rules, or to selectively apply the rules; nor is it to punish people for not following your directions (unless those directions are founded in the rules).

If a pandemic of "bundle of sticks" spam is overwhelming the cRPG community, then players who exhibit consistently problematic behavior should be removed, or the rules should be slightly refined, perhaps explicitly banning the use of that and other words which strongest association is bigotry. However, this seems to be an isolated case, and the only consistently problematic behavior here is your repeated refusal to even consider that you may have made a poor choice. Even a single argument other than, "It made them stop breaking the non-rule," or, "Deal with my actions; do not question them," would indicate to the members of this community that you take your responsibility seriously. Right now, it looks like you take your authority seriously, but not your responsibility.

Please do not scroll "bundle of sticks" in chat after I said "Hey stop posting "bundle of sticks" and scrolling the chat" in the admin chat.

Can you point me to the rule that even suggests that all requests from administrators must be fulfilled, however unreasonable? Here are the closest ones I can find, because they deal with language:

• No offensive behavior anywhere
  • Remember that this is the internet. Don't be insulted if someone calls you an idiot.

...

• No abuse of in-game chat (racism, insulting, griefing...)

However, the behavior for which one player was banned doesn't even come close enough to fall under the umbrella of either rule, so you can't hide behind administrative discretion here. I mean, I guess you can, but the principle of discretion should be wielded as a weapon to handle cancerous behavior, not a shield against rational criticism.

[EyeBeat]

Pretty sure scrolling the chat is not a "non rule".

I mean I can explain to you why you were banned for 2 hours again if you like using different words if you would like me to.

I am trying to figure out what you are trying to get out of this.

If a cop pulls over a car for going over the speed limit.  And the car in front of that car was speeding as well but gets away...  Do you think the cop is not going to issue the ticket still?

[ednos]

Pretty sure scrolling the chat is not a "non rule".

Really? Do you have even a shred of evidence to back that claim? Your word is not law; you are an enforcer. If there is some secret list of rules, then let us know that the cognoscenti haven't deemed the community worthy of this information. I just read the rules twice to make sure I didn't miss anything. If you can point out which portion of that post you used to justify the punishment, you'll at least have the start of a valid defense against criticism. Right now, the best you've got is a red herring (see below).

I mean I can explain to you why you were banned for 2 hours again if you like using different words if you would like me to.

I am trying to figure out what you are trying to get out of this.

I wasn't banned, but I'm just about as fed up with your systematic disregard for reason. We all know why you banned the player who disobeyed you; you've repeated yourself several times. The disagreement is over the validity of that reason. I assert that it's completely invalid, and I've written my justification. Your response to me and everyone else who has criticized you over this has been one form or another of unjustified denial.

If a cop pulls over a car for going over the speed limit.  And the car in front of that car was speeding as well but gets away...  Do you think the cop is not going to issue the ticket still?

Are you really going to unload this whopper of a red herring in your own feedback thread? First, there was no "getting away" here; everyone else who violated your imaginary rule was still connected to the server, and still subject to your selective punishment. This alone completely voids your analogy. Second, you stated more than once that you were just making an example of him, and that it stopped everyone else, and that his ban was sufficient to modify the behavior of the other players to your arbitrary model. This is, again, completely different from the police scenario you just described. Third, traveling faster than the speed limit is a clear violation of a clearly-defined law. Speeding laws are incredibly well-defined, almost to the point of absurdity. On the other hand, I have not seen a single hint from you that you were enforcing a rule that exists or has ever existed here. Fourth, the issue here is not that you selected one player for punishment--although that is a pretty serious issue, as I've already seen one suggestion of a personal vendetta--but that you made up a rule and enforced it. If several players start wounding their team intentionally, and you ban one, causing the rest to stop, and you decide not to ban them--note that they are all clearly violating a clearly-defined rule--then the discussion here would be different, because you would actually be in a gray area; however, your analogy would still be a red herring for the former reasons.

[oralroberts]

  I would like to say that I said "bundle of sticks" once in the chat...  and the exact sentence was "what is this bundle of sticksry"  and that was amongst all of the people spamming bundle of sticks over and over again.  Then you said ok i'm going to ban after you read the chat log.  Once that happened I was kicked and banned for an hour.  I don't really care about the ban now but it seems you're getting your story mixed up a bit eyebeat.  I have several witnesses on this occasion too.

[oralroberts]

also to say again.  I wasn't calling anyone a name in anyway.  so i wasn't insulting nor is that racism of any sort.  I used the word in harmless fashion....  And I was the only one banned out of however many were in the server....  seeing that everyone of them spammed "my old friend"...

[Muki]

please learn to edit in stald of double posting, never know when a forum mod will hit ya

[EyeBeat]

I wasn't banned, but I'm just about as fed up with your systematic disregard for reason.

Oh.    

In that case deal with it. 

[ednos]

In that case deal with it. 

With reasoning skills like yours, you could get Mother Theresa convicted for first-degree murder while defending her against charges of copyright violation. You're not accountable merely to the person you abused; you answer to the entire community over which you have been granted authority. If you won't even spend thirty seconds considering that your dogmatic attachment to a convoluted misconception of authority might be misplaced in a community of intellectuals, why do you still have any responsibility or authority here at all? You willfully neglect the most basic of your responsibilities and use your authority as a rationale for your failure of a defense.

I take the time to voice my concerns carefully and concisely because I have a vested interest in the long-term livelihood of this community. Too many of my favorites have slipped out of existence through systematic neglect of responsibility and abuse of authority (by administrators), and, until now, I had seen no sign of the same in this one. It doesn't matter whether you can't respond or won't; either condition is completely inappropriate for someone in your position. Rolling your eyes and regurgitating the same tired anthem does not indicate any comprehension of any of your criticisms; nor does it excuse you from answering for your childish behavior.

[EyeBeat]

With reasoning skills like yours, you could get Mother Theresa convicted for first-degree murder while defending her against charges of copyright violation. You're not accountable merely to the person you abused; you answer to the entire community over which you have been granted authority. If you won't even spend thirty seconds considering that your dogmatic attachment to a convoluted misconception of authority might be misplaced in a community of intellectuals, why do you still have any responsibility or authority here at all? You willfully neglect the most basic of your responsibilities and use your authority as a rationale for your failure of a defense.

I take the time to voice my concerns carefully and concisely because I have a vested interest in the long-term livelihood of this community. Too many of my favorites have slipped out of existence through systematic neglect of responsibility and abuse of authority (by administrators), and, until now, I had seen no sign of the same in this one. It doesn't matter whether you can't respond or won't; either condition is completely inappropriate for someone in your position. Rolling your eyes and regurgitating the same tired anthem does not indicate any comprehension of any of your criticisms; nor does it excuse you from answering for your childish behavior.

No one got abused.  Is this enough of a reply to make you type a whole bunch of stuff again? 

[ednos]

No one got abused.  Is this enough of a reply to make you type a whole bunch of stuff again? 

We all appreciate your attempt to appear smug; you get an A for effort, and trying is all that matters!

Can an adult please join this thread and defend him, since he's clearly incapable (or unwilling, which amounts to the same)? I really want to know whether his action was valid or not; as much as he thinks it's a joke, this is the sort of decision that can deeply affect a community of gamers. Anyone with any evidence at all to support him, please post!