Lancer on Banning - What Comes Around...

[MarkG]

<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 The Mad Monk on 05-10-2000 09:28 AM</font>
People are used to posting on anything that hits OT, and such a rule out of the blue could certainly be expected to be missed by some, ignored by others, and protested by still others.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>aha! the right to post wherever you like, whatever you like over a small request of the moderator so that there is ordered discussion...
<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>those who honestly missed it, because there was no way to expect it.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>they do know how to read dont they?
<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>As for your second comment, all that proves is that you're willing to support unlogical, nonsensical rules to a unjust extent. That is a hallmark of tyranny.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>look at a another example: ghen is on his fifth login over the last week. should I stop disabling the logins he makes just because he keeps making them? that's the point of my phrase...

[The Mad Monk]

[Narck]

<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 right to post wherever you like, whatever you like over a small request of the moderator so that there is ordered discussion...
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>Not a request, an order, punishable by vacation. An order that never had to have been made (is it really that important if a few ppl reply to an announcement?), and one that could have easily been avoided (by using the lock/unlock procedure). If that's too hard to do, then maybe the thread shouldn't have been posted at all.

I haven't said much about this issue and I'm not planning to, but I just want to say that I think both sides overreacted. However, it also is quite obvious (to me at least) that such a "not allowed to post here" thread was a big mistake. Threads are meant to be posted to, and if that's not the case they need to be locked.

Concludingly, one could say I also don't agree with the decisions made. I don't think we should make such a big deal out of it though. After all, this is still only an Off Topic forum of a game site and not real life

[Ming]

Everybody keeps saying it was never done before. I disagree. This isn't the first time I have done this to alert posters to a rule change. Knowing SOME people never check the general announcements, I almost always post a thread to let people know. And I have used the "don't post here line" before. In the past, this ground swell of "personal" freedom did not occur.

Now, I will agree that it retrospect, it should have been shut down sooner.
But, everybody seems to ignore the fact that people were actively TELLING other people to post to it. People were creating double log ons, just so they could post to it again, and again, and again! But it's all OUR fault...
Yeah, right.

[Narck]

<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 Ming on 05-10-2000 11:26 AM</font>
And I have used the "don't post here line" before.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>Ah ok, I never noticed that before, but I have no reason not to believe you. But what I really want to know is: are you still going to use the line in the future?

<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>But, everybody seems to ignore the fact that people were actively TELLING other people to post to it.
...

But it's all OUR fault...

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>No, not everyone says that, I, as well as a fair number of others, state that both sides overreacted, and were at least partly to blame for the final result. I also think this whole thing is blown way out of proportion.

No matter, perhaps it's time to stop the debate Perhaps it's time to stop blaming each other of what happened. It happened, now it's done, let's all move on to discuss more positive things
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Narck (edited May 10, 2000).]</font>

[The Mad Monk]

Ming, you are absolutely correct, creating DLs, open log-ons, and other people to post was wrong. I have never disagreed that both sides overeacted, it was very much a "heat of the moment" kind of thing. My quarrel is not with you.

[Legman]

<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 Ming on 05-10-2000 11:26 AM</font>
But, everybody seems to ignore the fact that people were actively TELLING other people to post to it. People were creating double log ons, just so they could post to it again, and again, and again! But it's all OUR fault...
Yeah, right.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>


1) Not everybody ignores this fact.

2) And you have to be joking if you want people to believe that (mainly) infantile posters' creation of DL's was the direct cause for you not locking the thread earlier.

You're one of the most manipulative people I've ever come across, and I mean it. You pick on people, promote your own ego and twist the facts in ways that are so obvious it sometimes makes me laugh out loud in disbelief. This is only the latest example.

But I won't argue that you hold a strong position at these forums, so please keep it up and make me laugh some more.

Twenty-something bonafide logons posted to that thread, and you could have shut it down anytime but you chose not to. People who posted have to accept their punishment, but you have to take responsibility for not closing it down sooner, and for making the stupid rule in the first place.

Come on let us hear you take that responsibility, eh?

[The Mad Monk]

Legman, I'm not convinced that Ming's failure to close the thread earlier was due to a lack of will; it may have been due to a lack of presense. If you look at the thread, Ming stopped posting Friday night, and did not post again until he closed the thread on Saturday night; Markg did all but one of the post/bannings after that. While Ming did comment on several threads before closing that one, it appears that none of those comments appeared, again, before Saturday night.

In short, I think Ming took the day off.

I'm all for voicing your displeasure (Lord knows, I've done it enough in this thread), but if you're going to take a shot, be sure you're aiming at the right target.

edit: grammer.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by The Mad Monk (edited May 10, 2000).]</font>

[MarkG]

just to be clear
MattHiggs-Faboba : Ming
ghen : MLeonard
Atahualpa-Fight Like A Brave : MarkG
Sir_Crusader- : Ming

I left after FLAB, Ming was online for some time already...

[Ming]

The Mad Monk... good catch.
Of course, I did say in the thread that I was going to unrestrict the early people after my Saturday golf and nap. As some people know, I'm usually never on line during that period.
But at least you looked to see if there was a reason why I didn't close down the thread earlier. Thank you for being open minded.

When I woke up from my nap, I will admit I was in a state of shock. As I said before, this wasn't the first time I had started a thread like that. The response this time kind of stunned me. And I DID close the thread down. If I was doing what you acuse me of, why didn't I just leave it open?

But legman will just come up with some other groundless insult, because that seems to be all he cares about. Fine, he is welcome to his opinions, even if he wants to ignore the facts. I'm just glad I can provide him with some amusement
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Ming (edited May 10, 2000).]</font>

[Legman]

Just as I expected, no taking responsibility for anything there.

I'm well aware that Ming wasn't online the whole time this went on thank you, but I'd hoped for some kind of explanation as to why it wasn't closed down earlier - and why the stupid rule about not posting was set up to begin with.

Ming has stated repeatedly that he monitored the development of the posting in that thread via ICQ... so why didn't he act?

And you might as well cut the manipulative crap with me Ming, it won't get you anywhere. I've got you pretty much figured out on this one.

---
"... and many consider me important." -Ming, 05.09.2000

Edit: Quote corrected and verified
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Legman (edited May 10, 2000).]</font>

[Ming]

First... I have admited that BOTH sides were being stubborn on this issue.

Second... To you it is a stupid rule, to me, it was a reasonable request that HAS worked in the past. It's a matter of opinion.

Three... My posts about the ICQ messages specifically said that I got the information from Matt Higgs the NEXT DAY while conversing with him.

So again, you continue to ignore the facts...
And as far as "my manipulative crap"... just another cheap insult on your part, again, based on no facts.

So who is the one that's trying to be manipulative here

[Legman]

The rule about not posting to a thread has worked in the past you say. Granted, it has, but not much more than 3-4 times as I recall it. And each time I've seen it more as some kind of macho stunt from you, "HEY! I'M IN CHARGE HERE!", than a sensible rule that was called for in the situation at hand. But still, it has been applied before. Noone has questioned that, so what's your point?

Yeah, you've said that both sides were being stubborn, but have you explained why the thread wasn't closed much sooner? No, you've evaded that question the whole time, despite the fact that many posters have wondered and openly asked. Do you mean to say you weren't online between Friday night and Saturday night? Please answer this as directly as you can manage.

The reason I brought up the ICQ was that you have tried to launch "the secret ICQ-plot" as some kind of justification for keeping the thread open, implicitly hinting that you monitored the events without interfering. But if you say you didn't monitor it, I haven't much of a case on that point. Only trouble is, you don't say it directly...

I'm not trying to be manipulative, and you know it. I'm merely raising these questions in a harsh and straightforward way, and you don't like that, do you?

I ignore no facts, but you're not supplying any facts on why you didn't close the thread much earlier. Isn't it about time you explained that?

---
"... and many consider me important." -Ming, 05.09.2000

[Ming]

First... you say you aren't being manipulative, but you use in your signature a quote taken out of context to "attempt" to embarass me. The full quote was "Yeah, so true Mao. It's kind of funny. At work, I'm an officer of the company, and many consider me important. Here, I'm just an unpaid lackey..." This was in response to Mao's question if I was a corporate lackey.
Nice try...
Next, you said: "The reason I brought up the ICQ was that you have tried to launch "the secret ICQ-plot" as some kind of justification for keeping the thread open, implicitly hinting that you monitored the events without interfering."
And where did you read this? I never said anything of the kind. You are just changing the facts in an attempt to support your bad argument. I didn't bring that up until after the fact... and that was because the conversation with Matt Higgs happened the next day. Maybe you should go back an reread it... and check the dates and times of my comments. Then you would see that I implied nothing of the sort.

And as far as being on line during that time... Do I need to repeat myself. I was playing golf and then took a nap. Did I close the thread first thing upon waking up... No. As I said BEFORE, I was stunned on what had happened.
MarkG was already involved, and he hadn't closed it... so I took some time to figure out what the heck was happening. We were VERY busy shutting down the double log ons. After that, I closed down the thread.
Could I have closed it down a few hours earlier... yes... but by then, it didn't really matter. It had been going on for longer than 24 hours.

And last... your comment " And each time I've seen it more as some kind of macho stunt from you, "HEY! I'M IN CHARGE HERE!" That is just your opinion. I posted threads like that to inform people of rule changes, just like in this situation. You are welcome to believe what you want, but next time... look at the facts instead of just making them up to suit your needs... just like your signature line...

[OhWell]

Legman, why don't you cut Ming some slack? He admitted to being "stubborn" and I believe that he was not on line (or at least not monitoring that thread) during most of the posts; Look at the times! Mings last post was 5/5@19:40. No one posted after that for over an hour (ghen). The next post (Atahualpa) was 5/6@10:16 or over 14 hours later. An hour after that, MarkG jumps in and things start to get ugly.

I think that both "sides" are right and both "sides" are wrong! It was somewhat of a poorly implemented "rule", almost like an afterthought and the thread should have been closed after the first 4 or 5 people posted. However, the thread was not closed and others posted. Would it be fair to ban the first 4 or 5 posters and not the later ones?