Banned? II

First of all, this thread exists simply because I still have some questions, and since I can't post in a locked thread, here it is. If someone would be so kind as to unlock the original thread and merge it with this, we can remove the need for it.

No need? There is no record of their "trolling", no topic you can link me to to justify why they were banned. Can you blame me for wanting answers that aren't vague?

And let's cut all pretenses here. I know you removed those posts with you and Winterr slagging off the French in an unjustifiable manner. I also know that you removed the posts where Void and LK both expressed concern over the racism shown in those posts. How do I know about them? I saw them as they were posted. The problem here is that not only did you delete their posts instead of acting like an adult and keeping them up and explaining it's what they were banned for, you deleted the precursors to those posts to cover your own asses. Why did you do it? Because they were right? It is disturbing to see racist comments expressed by the staff, after all.

If the staff do act in an inappropriate manner, the users here who have more than five brain cells (sure, there's not many of us compared to the others who are quite happy to proclaim how fucking glorious you all are) are going to say something about it. Will you ban them all for supposed "trolling"?

Don't give me that. I know that Void wasn't even on the warning list before this. Sure, you've deleted a couple of his posts that disagreed with you, but that's hardly justifiable grounds for zero warns to a ban. I'm just guessing you don't like Void. Any excuse for a ban, right?
LK, while easier to understand that he may have done something to get banned and was on the warning list, was simply backing up Void's concerns. Oh, I guess saying that the admins are racist (with evidence to support it) is grounds for a ban too, hm? These "normal" circumstances are obviously when a staff member isn't involved, I notice.

First of all, they weren't trolling, merely making an observation. All the people I've talked to regarding the posts in question have agreed that it does not appear to be trolling at all, merely a minor criticism. Bit of a shame you deleted them then, huh? Furthermore, I asked for specific details, such as what they said. Not that it matters now that you've forced my hand, but I don't appreciate it when honest questions are evaded.
Secondly. Trolls might not give people a good impression of the forum, but neither do allegedly racist, corrupt staff members who delete evidence after banning due to what some might call a personal vendetta.
Finally, I'm well aware of the circumstances of this forum's existence. I am simply letting users know that you can be banned for disagreeing with an admin, and in fact supporting your declaration that "freedom of speech only applies to the extent that the admin team allows it". Isn't that nice of me? What I do assume to exist is impartiality - that all members are treated by the admin staff fairly and in exactly the same manner, irregardless of personal feelings on the matter. If that exists, there should be either fewer bans in this situation, or more of them. If it doesn't, kindly say so, that we can be perfectly clear on the way this forum actually runs.

So. You can delete this thread, and people will be periodically reminded that this forum's administration policy could leave a little to be desired. You can lock this thread with or without replying. Same thing. Or you can treat my complaint with the respect I believe it deserves, coming from a member who simply wants answers, and reply in a manner deserving of a very good site's administrator. But what you can't do is ban me - I haven't broken any rules in creating this thread, except for creating two threads on the same topic, the reason for which being the original thread was locked without my ongoing concerns being voiced.

I hope to find a mature response soon, to which I will be able to respond in kind.
~Suiseiseki

 

Suiseiseki why are you even up on that high horse, does it even make any difference to you.
people come and go, and sometimes for reasons like being pointlessly rude, for no point whilst not even being anything to do with the topic.

its like playing xbox live, trying to have a conversation or talk tactics and having that annoying little kid that doesn't stop screaming in you ears and messing up the game.
but in the game you can mute him! on a forum you can't.

and you can't comment on anything in a defense for them as they where banned the last time for being offensive and i'm quite sure that's the case this time.

 

Not racist, really?
"that is the french to a tee, their culture is more important than any other. That's why there's so much french in science, because they threaten to throw a tantrum if french isn't used."
Quoted directly from the taco rant. I screencapped it just in case you decide to delete it for whatever reason. Quite a nice generalization there. As a French person, this offends me, and I think this was very uncalled for, especially in such an unrelated thread. I don't think you deserve to be an administrator here or anywhere, as your views are clearly biased and for no apparent reason. It's not only that, though! You see, you locked this thread because it was "derailed", yet you greatly contributed in this state, even without considering the discriminating aspect of your replies.

From IRC:
(8:51:53 PM) voidsies: Loony: I have never been banned. Argue all you want, but I would know. My post was not trolling, nor did it derail the thread more than your irrelevant French remarks. And even if you found what I had to say to be a bit "ranty" perhaps, maybe you should notice that I had posted in the Debates > Rants section, where my behaviour is anything but off kilter for the board's typical "heat".
(8:58:53 PM) voidsies: Loony: So, if you're any amount true to your remarks, I only deserve a warning by your own logic. I repeat, I have never been banned before. Further, you went further and suggested that my slate wouldn't be cleared -- so I ask: does this mere discrepency in opinion invalidate the PSX and DreamCast ISOs I have uploaded for the community in the past?
(8:58:55 PM) voidsies: I believe some were even eventually hosted on RU's servers. Also, you did delete my posts, and I was not trolling. You are seriously prejudice.
(9:07:20 PM) voidsies: Loony: Also, I've helped way too many newbs help set up no$gba and ePSXe with bios and shit via PM to put up with this. Unban me or, shall we say, viva la revolution.

To conclude, Têtes à Claques is the best site ever.

 

... I'm gonna stay out of the debate but as of now I've noticed one thing:
No evidence from either side

Now I must have missed the posts that Void allegedly made, However the one Loony mad ein the taco thread is no more insulting then all the other crap on these forums, because of this we can assume that void must have done something particularly bad (im not meantioning littlekill cos i kinda expected him to get banned sooner or later).

Anyway, thats my post, im out.

 

While it is true that the "evidence" is nonexistent, supposedly due to loonylion's deletion of the concerned posts, the many witnesses of the situation could provide coinciding testimonies, and that would be undeniable proof of loonylion's discriminating behavior. I think that in the Taco thread, loonylion did not act as an Administrator should; regular members are another story, but at the very least moderators should be expected to act in a mature way, which he did not show in this situation. Claiming to be 'against racism' when being racist oneself is quite hypocritical.

That said, loony, I expect an answer to my previous post.

 

why is this even a big deal they were not exactly the most contributing of members are you really going to miss them especially being someone with not many posts to you name.

 

<voidsies> I have no been banned
<voidsies> I assure you
<voidsies> not*
<voidsies> at least, unless it was set and removed before I had seen it. which seems unlikely.

His words, not mine. Sure, we've been banned from IRC on a number of occasions, but most of those were due to Seph throwing a temper tantrum at our attempts to have fun.

First of all, my sincere apologies for misreading the topic in question. It does appear that those posts are there after all, and I missed them during my first review of the thread. I take back any allegations based on that point, and once again offer apologies. I also appreciate that you've taken the time to address my points in a serious and professional manner.

However, I continue to debate whether anything they said was worth banning for. Making a minor observation that the staff is acting in a manner that can be construed as racist (which to an extent it was) is definitely not grounds for a ban under any system I've seen before.

Making an observation of someone else's posts is not trolling. Attacking other people's posts can be interpreted as trolling, but then what does this make our discussion? I really don't have the inclination to troll you, so I guess this is an argument. I also believe that Void's posts, although sometimes confrontational and unorthodox in manner, are barely, if ever, trolling. I don't see anywhere in the rules where a confrontational post, nor one saying that you're being silenced on a paritcular subject, is grounds for an instant ban. LK's? Sure, he trolls a lot, but does agreeing with an observation in this case really warrant a ban? The one time he actually makes a serious contribution, albeit "hey, isn't that sort of racist?" he gets banned for it. As for Seph, of course he won't do anything. He finds us annoying on IRC, so any ban here, wrongful or not, will be something he'll support in any case. I daresay that if you hypothetically banned me right now for no reason he wouldn't lift a finger in my support.

Glad to hear this clarification. Wouldn't it have been so much easier to type this up in response to Void and LK? Also, in all fairness, the French have made great advances in the fields of Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and Philosophy. That's a large reason why a number of science's key concepts are French. Do you have any citations to prove the "pressure" put on said communities? I'd like to see this for myself, as a point of interest.

In summary, Void and Littlekill do not deserve to be banned based on this incident. Sure, jack their warning levels up to 99%, make it a one-more-strike-and-you're-banned thing for all I care. I simply do not see how anything they have done in this situation warrants a ban, considering your entire reason for doing so assumes that the posts in question existed for trolling purposes.

First of all, I don't see what this has got to do with you either, hypocrite. If you really have to know, it affects me because I believe something wrong has been done here. If I do nothing, that's grounds for it to happen again, and considering I'm probably on half the staff's shit lists by now for not kissing any asses during my time here, I'm really not looking forward to a time when I can get banned on the grounds of what amounts to a creative misunderstanding. On another note, don't tell me what I can or can't do. You're assuming the staff are impartial and correct in what they did. I'm questioning loonylion's judgment in this matter, and if you or anyone else can't seem to grasp that incredibly simple idea, I suggest you find another thread.

Yes. Yes, I am. And it's a big deal because as I have mentioned before being banned on dubious circumstances is a dangerous precedent to all users.

Yeah, and I think banning them was one of them.

Cool, but Asperger's and (supposedly irreplacable) skills are no reason to wave your power around and ban people whenever you feel like it.

<voidsies> I've talked with Seph just weeks ago
<voidsies> he was saying they have a board where they discuss bans or possible bans or some shit
<voidsies> or they do it in the mod forum
<voidsies> Im not totally sure
<voidsies> Anyway I asked if I had ever been considered for a ban
<voidsies> and he said no
<voidsies> and Ive been pretty active in the past while, I'd notice if I were banned for any decent amount of time

So how long ago was this ban, exactly?

So if enough people post after an objectionable remark without calling you out, you're in the clear?

 

i remember that well i was in the middle of it after it kicked off, in fact they went even further as to make multiple accounts to wind up the situation even more afterward, i even made a sig for one of them before i found out what they where doing.

they're not innocent of anything by a long run.

i find little kill funny at times but he is a troll and although i have found his comments funny at times they are pointlessly abusive and i'm sure many get offended by what he says and its a similar situation for the other always getting mixed up in needless fights.

no one is unfairly treated here so any bans, warnings and kicks up the bum are deserving.

and France is not a race its a nation

 

How exactly did it derail the thread? By saying that something was racist? By the time interval between your post and his? And if one of my posts pointing out something about a staff member's posts was deleted, I'd bloody well think I was being censored. You made us all think there was something he said that you didn't want to hear and so deleted. He recieved no explanation as to why his post was deleted, so what would you do in that situation?
"Oh, I said an admin was racist and he deleted my post! Guess my posts are being censored to stop me saying something bad about the admins, and that's not right."

No, but neither are they guilty of anything banworthy.

You're an idiot if you truly believe that.

 

i've had my fair share of kicks in the bum and although at the time i may have thought it was an injustice, i was deserving of it.

you do realize you are making about the most un-respectable case by not only attacking site admins but now calling me an idiot when i speak from knowledge.

ive been here a while now and contributed a fair amount, i've seen people come and go, argue pointlessly, flame, offend and contribute properly and all so far without any doubt have been dealt with fairly.

 

If you haven't noticed, loony, not all of us have confidence in the whole "it was deleted for a rule" thing. You, for your part, could also have explained to him why it was deleted, either before or after he posted, but you didn't do that either, instead opting to ban straight away.

<Littlekill> one thing about deleted posts
<Littlekill> 90% of posts that should be deleted
<Littlekill> just get locked
<Littlekill> yet when something that doesnt even INSULT anyone
<Littlekill> gets deleted
<Littlekill> makes you think

And I for my part have had my own admonishments, and for the most part I do agree with what they were for (like provoking Seph time and again, personal attacks on Seph, etc). However, it is my belief that more could have been done to prevent the use of a ban, and that failing to do so - and failure to admit it - is not the conduct I've come to expect from an otherwise great moderation team. As for making a disrespectable case, the people who matter in this argument know that this is my usual response to people who do not belong in a conversation that should not concern them.

The admins do make mistakes, and I'm calling loony out on this one and suggesting as a fellow user that they be officially warned and put on probation instead of banned outright. It could have been handled better and without the use of a ban, and can still be done so. If Void and Littlekill are really such big trolls, then probation would mean that they would be banned in short order. If not, then no bans are necessary anyway, and this all blows over.

 

And my point is these weren't offences, just misunderstandings and mishandlings on both sides. You MADE them offences by your interpretation and handling of them.

 

Just hold on a second right there. Attacking people's posts isn't trolling when it's in a debate section. In fact, that's the entire point of a debate--to attack points in other peoples' posts to prove either them wrong or incorrect, but that usually doesn't happen since a debate is all about opinion.

Once could also argue that the entire thread itself was derailed by the OP; starting the post with why restaurants shouldn't serve tacos, and then ending on a completely different note about language, that absolutely had nothing to do with the original point of restaurants serving tacos.

Thus, in my personal opinion and by those around me, I determine that as of the very first response back, they were unfairly banned due to misinterpretation of what a debate board is all about (if you're talking about posts getting heated, those are flame posts, not trolling), and an inaccurate determination as to who started the 'derailment' of the topic.

Thus, I personally request that Voidsies and Littlekill be unbanned. It's only the right thing to do, since in my opinion the situation was completely misinterpreted by the administration at hand.

 

I second that motion. Please consider unbanning and giving a last-chance warning.

 

I was not in anyway part of this issue, nor do I do IRC, I do reject the simple notion that derailing a thread should amount to any kind of ban as I guess most members and admin are guilty of that, if some of the members where guilty of that it should come as no supprise to neither active forum posters or admin, yes some people do it on purpose, and sometimes that can lead to better discussion.

I do reject(as has been said) that Loonylion is a racist, I admit that certain of his responses/retorts may seem at times racialy motivated and I have called him on his posts in the past. I have been assured that while he may at times post seemingly inflamatory remarks he is not a racist.

I am not in anyway a sucker or a bitch to RomUlation. As those that have read my posts know, I am not excatly PC. Given this I am at odds over this whole idea of banning users. Ultimatly control over RomU must lie in the hands of Seph and Loony, I doubt that either of them want to rock the boat and piss off any active forum members, but we as members must at the same time remember that $5K a month can be a hard mistress.
I must look to compariable sites when thinking about how RomU deals with potential user problems, due to the PG13 rule this is very difficult and personally I wish RomU would drop that. As it stands I do understand why RomU have that proviso though I doubt it facilitates free discussion, and it could be used as a very arbitary ban-stick. RomUlation is not a democracy, as a user I understand I may post here under privilege alone, but I guess the point in the previous posts is simply that a rule to a user should also be a rule to an admin. I accept those rules and I try to post within them, sometimes I fail. I find it hard to consider that the majority of active members could stick strictly to the rules.

These are only my thoughts on an issue that is realy none of my business. I only comment as a sorry attempt to understand and think about what RomU does. It's not just about the Roms.