Permanent Ban Request: Balton (Poll Inside)

[Tigerclaw]

He's annoying, but that's no reason to ban.  No ban.

Not sure that I'd agree with that line of reasoning. After all, why do we have rules against teamkilling and penalize players for teamkilling? Because it makes the game less enjoyable for everyone else who is playing. The same reasoning applies with delaying the rounds, racial\sexual harrasment or any other form of griefing. In order for any group of people to do something together there has to be a minimum level of mutual respect and restraint. And in any group, whenever an individual decides to pursue their own interests at the expense of the group and\or in violation of that groups norms, the group responds by removing or penalizing that individual. That, is the criminal justice system, high school, and online gaming, in a nutshell. 

Now obviously, there are differences in degree. In our case, trolling someone is less serious than teamkilling someone, but that doesn't mean that trolling can't become a serious problem. The difficulty is that trolling\harrassment is much harder to define than, say, teamkilling or teamwounding - at what point does trolling become serious enough to warrant action? This, however, is why we have admins, and why admins have discretion - because many incidents don't fit into a neat little cateogory that you can stick a label on or make a rule about (stupid prepositions, always sneaking into the ends of my sentences...).

So, in a situation like this, if the admins decide that a player is a consistent and incorrigble detriment to the community, then that is all the reason that they need to ban him - in essence, for being annoying. Now, not being an admin and being a relative newcomer to the cRPG community, if not the mod, I am not at this time offering an opinion on banning Balton, but I found Ludwig's remark interesting and thought that I'd put in my oar.

[Balton]

Not sure that I'd agree with that line of reasoning. After all, why do we have rules against teamkilling and penalize players for teamkilling? Because it makes the game less enjoyable for everyone else who is playing. The same reasoning applies with delaying the rounds, racial\sexual harrasment or any other form of griefing. In order for any group of people to do something together there has to be a minimum level of mutual respect and restraint. And in any group, whenever an individual decides to pursue their own interests at the expense of the group and\or in violation of that groups norms, the group responds by removing or penalizing that individual. That, is the criminal justice system, high school, and online gaming, in a nutshell. 

Now obviously, there are differences in degree. In our case, trolling someone is less serious than teamkilling someone, but that doesn't mean that trolling can't become a serious problem. The difficulty is that trolling\harrassment is much harder to define than, say, teamkilling or teamwounding - at what point does trolling become serious enough to warrant action? This, however, is why we have admins, and why admins have discretion - because many incidents don't fit into a neat little cateogory that you can stick a label on or make a rule about (stupid prepositions, always sneaking into the ends of my sentences...).

So, in a situation like this, if the admins decide that a player is a consistent and incorrigble detriment to the community, then that is all the reason that they need to ban him - in essence, for being annoying. Now, not being an admin and being a relative newcomer to the cRPG community, if not the mod, I am not at this time offering an opinion on banning Balton, but I found Ludwig's remark interesting and thought that I'd put in my oar.

By your logic, we should ban all the good players, because they are making the game less enjoyable for everyone they kill. That is definitely not the way the justice system operates. People are not penalized for being skilled, or for having a high intelligence (at least they shouldn't be).

Of course, the practically and theory of this motive don't align. Meaning, insecure people do hate those who are better than them, and many players who consistently get killed by those better than them do develop a hatred (and eventually seek revenge) for those that dominate them.

With that said, trolling is just another "game", another contest to test your skills at. But this battle is much more delicate, much more dynamic, it is not restricted by the creativity of pre-conceived notions, only by the intellect of the participants themselves.

That said... More intelligent people = Better trolls. Mods who mute/kick/ban for trolling are just bitter, angry, & immature children who constantly lose intellectual debates.

Carrying out a negative action against someone who is trolling is equivalent to banning a player because they are 20-0 in-game. Being better than those around you should not cause them to hate you, but it does. It is a fault that has been present in humanity for many millenia.

[SteelDevil]

keep him ofc whats wrong with u :d

[Tigerclaw]

I specifically stated that I was referring to people who "pursue their own interests at the expense of the group and\or in violation of that group's norms." This would not include skilled players because they neither act as a detriment to this community nor does being good somehow violate accepted behavior within this community - on the contrary, I expect that for many players, being good at the game is a goal. Thus, the argument doesn't apply to skilled players simply because they are skilled, although they may fall into this category for other reasons.

It is certainly true that many insecure people respond negatively to those who perform better then they do. However, it does not follow that this includes everyone who is annoyed by trolling. Naturally, whenever people are together in any sort of social interaction, there will be some degree of banter or trolling present. However, it is to be expected that in cases of organized social interaction, those running things will set limits on what is acceptable and what is not. There is nothing necessarily wrong with this - in our case, if someone is putting forth the financial effort and the time to run a server, then of course they can decide what they will and will not permit on their server - no one is making us play there, so if we don't like it, we can play somewhere else.

Now, if an admin/mod is taking action against a troll for personal reasons, then they are being immature. If, however, the admin or mod is taking the action because the troll is behaving in a way that the owners of a server/forum have decided is innapropiate, then they are simply doing their job. Thus, whether or not penalizing a troll is equivalent to banning a player who is 20-0 depends on why the troll is being penalized - if you're doing it because you can and you feel like it, then yes, it is essentially the same. If you're doing it because the troll is beyond the limits set by the server owners, then you're being a good admin. My point was simply that those limits may not always be tangible, a fact which I rather thought you would appreciate, as you implied that you enjoy trolling due to the absence of pre-conceived notions.

[Balton]

I specifically stated that I was referring to people who "pursue their own interests at the expense of the group and\or in violation of that group's norms." This would not include skilled players because they neither act as a detriment to this community nor does being good somehow violate accepted behavior within this community - on the contrary, I expect that for many players, being good at the game is a goal. Thus, the argument doesn't apply to skilled players simply because they are skilled, although they may fall into this category for other reasons.

It is certainly true that many insecure people respond negatively to those who perform better then they do. However, it does not follow that this includes everyone who is annoyed by trolling. Naturally, whenever people are together in any sort of social interaction, there will be some degree of banter or trolling present. However, it is to be expected that in cases of organized social interaction, those running things will set limits on what is acceptable and what is not. There is nothing necessarily wrong with this - in our case, if someone is putting forth the financial effort and the time to run a server, then of course they can decide what they will and will not permit on their server - no one is making us play there, so if we don't like it, we can play somewhere else.

Now, if an admin/mod is taking action against a troll for personal reasons, then they are being immature. If, however, the admin or mod is taking the action because the troll is behaving in a way that the owners of a server/forum have decided is innapropiate, then they are simply doing their job. Thus, whether or not penalizing a troll is equivalent to banning a player who is 20-0 depends on why the troll is being penalized - if you're doing it because you can and you feel like it, then yes, it is essentially the same. If you're doing it because the troll is beyond the limits set by the server owners, then you're being a good admin. My point was simply that those limits may not always be tangible, a fact which I rather thought you would appreciate, as you implied that you enjoy trolling due to the absence of pre-conceived notions.

Wow... I rarely ever read anything with more logical loops than what you just wrote. The best part was "the argument doesn't apply to skilled players because they are skilled." Biggest loop I have ever read in my life. "The sky is blue because it is blue." "I love chicken because I love chicken." Sorry, that's not how the world or perceptions operate.

Being skilled (good at this game) is definitely not a "norm". If it was a norm, it wouldn't be termed skilled (good). Being skilled (good) is clearly pursuing your own interests.

Also, I expect being intelligent is a goal for practically every human being on Earth.

As for your main argument, you're basically stating that the server owner is a God, and that whatever he wills goes, regardless of everything else. In that case, if the server owner decides that going 20-0 warrants a ban, then a ban should be applied?

Have fun doing what everyone in a position of power above you wills you to do. Honestly, your lifestyle must be one of the worst possible. It's like killing someone just because a policeman (who could be corrupt) told you to do it. By your logic, because he is a policeman, nothing else matters.

Also... Argumentum ad Potentiam. Learn some basic logic bro. I suppose you are the ideal person to have in your society though, because you do everything you are told, without ever questioning anything.

[LLJK_Korea1]

With that said, trolling is just another "game", another contest to test your skills at. But this battle is much more delicate, much more dynamic, it is not restricted by the creativity of pre-conceived notions, only by the intellect of the participants themselves.

That said... More intelligent people = Better trolls. Mods who mute/kick/ban for trolling are just bitter, angry, & immature children who constantly lose intellectual debates.

wut

[Siiem]

Balton is entertaining, keep him.

[Casimir]

Can we ban Polepoop? He trolls me.

[Vexus]

While he may be annoying till he doesn't break rules I don't think they can do anything.

[Tigerclaw]

Apparently you must not read your own posts, then.

Misquoting or partially-quoting someone as a basis for a claim is hardly a shining example of intellectal ability. I stated that "the argument doesn't apply to skilled players simply because they are skilled, although they may fall into this category for other reasons" i.e, being skilled does not place a person into this category, but a skilled player may fall into this category due to other behavior. And considering that that entire first half of the paragraph (which you must have read, since you mentioned "norms") gave the actual definition of the group that I was discussing, i.e, "people who pursue their own interests at the expense of the group and\or in violation of that group's norms," to cut a snippet from the end of the paragraph and then dub the entire line of reasoning a loop is a pitiful excuse for a logical argument.

I'm using the word "norm" in an anthropological sense, i.e, behavior that is considered socially acceptable within a group, whether or not it is commonplace. It is a correct usage of the term to state that being skilled does not violate the norms of the community because there is no social stigma or censure attached to being good at the game.

My main point is simply a recognition of reality - on a gaming server, yes, the owner is essentially god. Is it fair for the owner to ban someone for having a 20-0? Of course not. Does the owner have the right (in terms of ability, not in terms of morality) to do that? Absolutely. It isn't a question of what should happen, it's a question of what will happen.

The owner and his associates are going to decide what is permitted on a given server, and the limits that they set may be reasonable, or they may not. It is up to the players to decide if they want to abide by those limitations. If we don't like it, we play somewhere else, and if the owner wants to lay out good money for the privilege of being a douche, good for him. Hope he enjoys his empty server. If we don't have a problem with the owner's rules, then we play there. "Voting with your feet," as they say.

Argumentum ad potentiam really doesn't apply here, since this isn't a question of veracity. If I was saying that the server owner says it is fair to ban you, and the server owner is god on his server, therefore it is fair to ban you, then you would be correct in referencing argumentum ad potentiam. However, my argument is simply that the server owner doesn't need a specific rule to cite in order to ban someone, if he decides that you are going to be banned because you violate his idea of how he wants things to work on his server (or for any other reason), then you are going to be banned because he has the ability. The ability of the server owner to ban and the fairness/unfairness of that ban are two seperate issues.

And after reading your next to last paragraph, I began to contemplate my life. And in this contemplation, when I realized that I have, in my relatively short life, been on the receiving end of a SWAT operation, been a major contributing factor in a rather dramatic church-split, received an annoying number of credible death threats, been investigated by nine different law enforcement agencies (that I know of) and generally been in trouble with one authority or another my entire life, clearly, I always do exactly what I'm told to do. Thank you, Balton, for enlightening me! I never knew I was such a conformist!

 

Argumentum ad hominem? Really? Basic logic, indeed...

[Balton]

Apparently you must not read your own posts, then.

Misquoting or partially-quoting someone as a basis for a claim is hardly a shining example of intellectal ability. I stated that "the argument doesn't apply to skilled players simply because they are skilled, although they may fall into this category for other reasons" i.e, being skilled does not place a person into this category, but a skilled player may fall into this category due to other behavior. And considering that that entire first half of the paragraph (which you must have read, since you mentioned "norms") gave the actual definition of the group that I was discussing, i.e, "people who pursue their own interests at the expense of the group and\or in violation of that group's norms," to cut a snippet from the end of the paragraph and then dub the entire line of reasoning a loop is a pitiful excuse for a logical argument.

I'm using the word "norm" in an anthropological sense, i.e, behavior that is considered socially acceptable within a group, whether or not it is commonplace. It is a correct usage of the term to state that being skilled does not violate the norms of the community because there is no social stigma or censure attached to being good at the game.

My main point is simply a recognition of reality - on a gaming server, yes, the owner is essentially god. Is it fair for the owner to ban someone for having a 20-0? Of course not. Does the owner have the right (in terms of ability, not in terms of morality) to do that? Absolutely. It isn't a question of what should happen, it's a question of what will happen.

The owner and his associates are going to decide what is permitted on a given server, and the limits that they set may be reasonable, or they may not. It is up to the players to decide if they want to abide by those limitations. If we don't like it, we play somewhere else, and if the owner wants to lay out good money for the privilege of being a douche, good for him. Hope he enjoys his empty server. If we don't have a problem with the owner's rules, then we play there. "Voting with your feet," as they say.

Argumentum ad potentiam really doesn't apply here, since this isn't a question of veracity. If I was saying that the server owner says it is fair to ban you, and the server owner is god on his server, therefore it is fair to ban you, then you would be correct in referencing argumentum ad potentiam. However, my argument is simply that the server owner doesn't need a specific rule to cite in order to ban someone, if he decides that you are going to be banned because you violate his idea of how he wants things to work on his server (or for any other reason), then you are going to be banned because he has the ability. The ability of the server owner to ban and the fairness/unfairness of that ban are two seperate issues.

And after reading your next to last paragraph, I began to contemplate my life. And in this contemplation, when I realized that I have, in my relatively short life, been on the receiving end of a SWAT operation, been a major contributing factor in a rather dramatic church-split, received an annoying number of credible death threats, been investigated by nine different law enforcement agencies (that I know of) and generally been in trouble with one authority or another my entire life, clearly, I always do exactly what I'm told to do. Thank you, Balton, for enlightening me! I never knew I was such a conformist!

 

Argumentum ad hominem? Really? Basic logic, indeed...

In that case, I disagree with your opinion. You state that being skilled and going on killing sprees in no way harms your victims. Yet being intelligent and manipulating your victims does harm them. There is clearly a strong bias there.

Some examples: When I lance/couch someone in the beginning of the round, forcing them to not participate for the rest of the round, I am sure that demoralizes them in a much greater fashion than if I were to say "Yo bro, you're fat."

The first example is clearly harmful to them (me killing them in the beginning of the round), whilst the second example (me calling them fat) is a statement that can be ignored by them, in which case they will incur absolutely no penalties from it.

I really do not understand how you are stating that a physical event that penalizes a player causes no harm, yet some words that only invoke reaction if the victim allows them to, cause great harm worthy of a ban.

You justify it by stating that dying is to be expected from playing a game, yet being called fat (or other forms of "trolling") is something that players coming into the game do not realize will happen.

Well yet again, I disagree with you there. By playing the game they realize that their in-game death has a possibility of occurring. And by participating in a social scenario they should also realize that words may be exchanged between them and other players.

But I say this once more... Words can be ignored, deaths have a direct impact.


This next point is more philosophical/psychology-wise than logic... You state that there is no social stigma attached to being good, but you couldn't be more wrong. Clearly you are not a superior person/top tier person. You are not exceedingly strong/fast/attractive/intelligent, or any other score. Because if you were, you would know that being better than those around you is arguably the most powerful social stigma. This stems from the point I brought up, people get jealous. This definitely applies in-game as well. Players who are good at the game are treated in a completely different manner than "randoms" who get mediocre scores. Players who are good at this game get their dicks sucked in a similar (but less drastic/frequent) manner as mods.


I believe your real main point (disregarding your weird rants) was that killing people in-game is "socially acceptable", whilst making any negative remarks isn't. But we cannot censor ourselves on such a drastic level, one that even breaks the boundaries of subjective implications from off-handed statements, when our medium of communication is a human language. We could not even do something as simple as communicating with the intent of relying specific data pertaining only to the game, because we would have to censor most of the data. You have to realize, we can't restrict ourselves to only "good" statements, because good is highly subjective, and what one may say without meaning any harm, others may perceive that statement to be of great evil.

Humans aren't perfect, languages aren't perfect, and people's ability to articulate properly via a faulty system definitely is no-where near perfect.

[Jarlek]

Ban him. Harassing admins and players alike. I've even seen Balbaroth trying to be kind to him just so he would play nice and leave his poor victims alone. I honestly do not know what his problem is.. Or what caused a south African rhino Beetle grub to crawl up his ass and cause alot of hurt, but he can leave cRPG until he can resolve his own conflicts. Only then can he come back. 

That wasn't a African rhino Beetle, it was my penis 

Also ban him.

[Gorath]

It'd be funny to ban him, yet as a moral dilemna I don't think I could:
1)  He's the biggest emo on the forum- just look at him- being banned would probably contribute directly to him slashing his own wrists in an emo rage
2)  He's obviously got severe esteem issues as evident from the level of narcissism he displays here.  No friends irl, parents are probably quite disgusted with the emo child they produced.  He needs this for some validation in his life.  Out of pity alone we keep him, because who the fuck else will?
3)  Pretty sure he'd make another account anyways in an effort to keep some attention coming his way.  It's a safe bet that it's compulsory.

On the 26th of Feb
« Sent to: Gorath on: Yesterday at 07:48:22 »
I officially have more negative points than you, and I am no-where near your post count/time spent on forum.

Get rocked nerd.

When your self-esteem is low, clamor for e-attention... on the weekend... instead of being out with people in the real world getting shitty drunk and laid. 

Nah, he needs the attention desperately.  Consider it charity for the tryhard.

P.S.  Fitch got fucking robbed!  At least Penn had class enough to admit he lost the fight when Joe asked him about how he felt towards the judges draw decision.

[LLJK_Korea1]

It'd be funny to ban him, yet as a moral dilemna I don't think I could:
1)  He's the biggest emo on the forum- just look at him- being banned would probably contribute directly to him slashing his own wrists in an emo rage
2)  He's obviously got severe esteem issues as evident from the level of narcissism he displays here.  No friends irl, parents are probably quite disgusted with the emo child they produced.  He needs this for some validation in his life.  Out of pity alone we keep him, because who the fuck else will?
3)  Pretty sure he'd make another account anyways in an effort to keep some attention coming his way.  It's a safe bet that it's compulsory.When your self-esteem is low, clamor for e-attention... on the weekend... instead of being out with people in the real world getting shitty drunk and laid. 

Nah, he needs the attention desperately.  Consider it charity for the tryhard.

P.S.  Fitch got fucking robbed!  At least Penn had class enough to admit he lost the fight when Joe asked him about how he felt towards the judges draw decision.

You don't need to have low-esteem to act like self-loving douche

[Xant]

You don't need to have low-esteem to act like self-loving douche

Korea1 has first-hand experience.