SS and YYYH Overreaction by Admins?

[D2K]

You know Sten I was in the Childrens' Crusade.

And I don't think I'll get over Macho Grande.

[Black Dragon]

You may not have what they have done Mark and Dan- but they have already been punished!- an entire year!

[Sten Sture]

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.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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).

[MarkG]

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>

[Imran Siddiqui]

Uh.. if you look in the FAQ there isn't any mention that someone could be permanently banned. So there!

[Mark von Wagner]

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>

[Drow]

<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!

[Urban Ranger]

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.

[Mark von Wagner]

So, you say that because someone else makes a bad decision, the moderators here should also make bad decisions?