Here we go again
SS and YYYH Overreaction by Admins?
This might well be my first vacation, but it happens to the best of us, as well as the worst.
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>well, we(Apolyton) dont forget what exactly they did, who's name they used, how they behaved after their actions, and how they have behaved up to today
find yourself another "cause"
thread closed
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>
I don't know Stewart Spink from Adam, but I do know YYYH casually at ACOL and Sidgames, and by observation at owo, (I never talked to him there, because I posted in other forums), and by lurking here on occasion, at the time of the "incidents." IMO, YYYH's behavior has modified considerably since a year ago, a year is a huge ban in terms of sending a message, and as they are both popular, well-regarded posters, it seems to me that the admins have nothing to lose by giving them the option of coming back, even on probation, as it were.
After a year, the ban has passed from an appropriate response to an unacceptable action, to simple egotism "I'm not gonna back down and I'll sit here and hold my breath" by the admins. Is it now a just a question of manhood or thin-skinnedness?
Or is there a real reason for a lifetime ban policy, other than hacking/attempts at site sabotage/criminal activity on the site?
No private site is a democracy, but an in your face unwillingness to budge isn't exactly necessary either.
Here we go again
Yeah... here we go again is right
Moved to the Apolyton forum where this belongs...
Thread Moved!
------------------
Ming
CivII & Off-Topic Forum Moderator
Ming@Apolyton.net
A query for the admins: If we, collectively, were to petition GameStats for a reinstatement of their logins, would you agree to reciprocate and reinstate him, if we were successful? It seemed like correctly applied pressure was successful over the pop-up ads...it could be worth a try!
I don't know AI, the Gamestats people are VERY sensitive to this particular issue.
Last time some people tried that, Mark and Dan got alot of heat over it. They considered the issue closed, and felt they were being spammed and wanted people stop spamming them.
If anything the vehicle would have to be a single petition, instead of an array of emails.
Justice and compassion go hand in hand, and no one displayed compassion in this circumstance. A rash display of authority only makes a fool out of the authority, as it did to Gamestats, Mark G and Dan Q.
And let's look at the larger picture: Gamestats and Apolyton are just entertainment. In that light, the banning, yes, it was an asswhole response, but again, nothing truly vital was sacrificed.
Never the less, attach this to your sig:
FREE YYYH and SPINK
We'll never forget!
Micheal, use your clever mind and re-read the words of mine that you quoted
the answers to your questions are in there
Perhaps I could motivate Gamestats?
Although I doubt it is worth my time.
you have more serious things to do evan, trust me...
and it isn't as if YYYH is a forum degenerate or something, hell he's run both of the two most successful story-forums...
this is a bit of a double-standard considering that we weren't so much as touched for spamming the hell out of Newsmax
we didnt have any complaints from newsmax, which means that there werent any problems, or at least that there werent any problems that affected our site's name and reputation....
Most Newsmaxers don't beleave in such logical methods as an official complaint. And why would they complain anyway, since God will punish all of the unholy who dared to violate the forum of good christians?
Actrually, there hasn't been a lot of serious spamming by Apolytoners on NM, other than a few pranks over a month ago now. Most of the folks from here who are still there are not spamming but trying to initiate serious conversations with the Newsmaxers (but have had very little luck so far).
The case of YYYH and Spink is very different. However, over a year long baning should be enough of a sentence to anyone. I think an "appeal" might be in place.
Life is full of consequences. When you belong to an organization, you abide by their rules...if not, you suffer whatever consequences have been laid out. I'm not saying this wasn't excessive, etc., but this is their site. Maybe, some day, this event will bring about changes. A fledgling business has only one real marketable component: its reputation. I'd be pissed if some bored juvenile attempted to ruin that for me...why would I give them another chance? Apolyton is not "all mighty"...it is an up and comer in a cutthroat industry. They have a right to protect their interests.
But forgiveness, if possible, is a big move.
Tough one, this.
------------------
Bring it!
"Do not act as if you would live ten thousand years. Death hangs over you. While you live, while it is in your power, be good." Marcus Aurelius (Meditations)
MarkG knows the banning of the two persons in questions was an utter joke -- I asked around -- so he responds to any attempt to get them back with joking and smilies.
HAHA... Not funny Mark.
------------------
Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité
I don't think anyone from here "spammed" newsmax. There was spamming but I believe it was done by folks only loosely associated to Apolyton. In any event it wasn't a coordinated effort.
But I have no opinion on YYYH & Stewart.
You know Sten I was in the Childrens' Crusade.
And I don't think I'll get over Macho Grande.
You may not have what they have done Mark and Dan- but they have already been punished!- an entire year!
Of course most of us would like to see amnesty granted to their log-ins so Stew and Rich could go back to using their old monikers, but the only way it could happen is if Apolyton left Gamestats (silly reason to do that) or very quietly - a petition would only make Gamestats dig in their heels.
The fact that they spam-attacked an affiliated site and one about a Microsoft game no-less can't help their cause.
If they would have done a similar thing to a solo site for a random game company, it might not have been an issue. I can see a tactical lesson in all of this - if you and your buddy want to take over a city, something small and out of the way might be more advisable than, say, New York or London.
This amnesty effort has less chance of success than the Children's Crusade.
And you know something... there was no rule for this. If someone told me that someone spammed a forum, I'd say a couple months banning. Never expected a lifetime ban. It was a shock, because it wasn't a written down rule (that was another reason we kind of got mad).
yeah there should be a rule that said "if you spam and insult the visitors of an entire site in the name of apolyton, you'll be permanently banned"! sorry for not thinking something like this could ever happen...
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited July 29, 2000).]</font>
Uh.. if you look in the FAQ there isn't any mention that someone could be permanently banned. So there!
From part XVI:
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>The third time someone loses his ability to post for something on the forums will be the last (the disablement will be permanent). In more serious circumstances, the first disablement could also be permanent.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui on 07-29-2000 09:27 PM</font>
Uh.. if you look in the FAQ there isn't any mention that someone could be permanently banned. So there!
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>
even if it wasn't in the faq, markos would say that it's in one of the "etc"'s. that's what he did to me!
I would say, in the name of fairness, give them a second chance. Even Tyson, a convicted rapist, was re-admitted so he could box again. I am not going to comment whether this is wise, but this illustrastes that far worse offenders are given a second chance.
So, you say that because someone else makes a bad decision, the moderators here should also make bad decisions?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks