Warrior General Games

Originally posted by JDaniels127
Originally posted by Jose Bagg

I am choosing to side with my wife in the bed. I have work in the morning. Good night one and all, keep this thread bumped, I want to see some Bortage in it.

Good idea Wife over game

Bad idea. Dump wife, quit job, auction children, burn house (but make it look like an electrical thing).

Play GLB.

Originally posted by WearyWarrior
Shouldn't perma-banned players be able to post in the private forums? If we invite them then clearly we are welcoming them in. And its not that tough to remove them if they do decide to make trouble. All im asking is to be able to moderate the forum that i paid for. And in anycase they have access to their team forums still, so its not like they cant post at all anymore.

agreed 1000000%

it makes no sense to have it otherwise

Originally posted by Azure Dreams
Originally posted by Catullus 16
frankly, i see a lot of people in here that don't know what an analogy technically is.
also... i think those supporting the current policy are going to be hard-pressed promoting any logic beyond "because i said so". but similarly, those against the current policy are going to be hard-pressed to offer anything more than their version of fair play... which then gets back to why certain people were perma-banned, which is what this whole discussion is really about, right?
i hate proxy arguments.
Actually, I'll disagree.
1: I've already presented the logic about a directly correlative punishment with the crime. Whether you think more is fair or not there's something to be said for a punishment that is fitting.
2: Also: There is no good business sense to impose additional punishments on people beyond what benefits the community. If you feel that someone has shown an inability to post in the manner you find appropriate on the public forums, you prevent them from doing so, so that the integrity of the forum rules can be upheld better and other users do not have to deal with whatever issue the ban-ee presented.
3: However, the same rules do not apply to private forums. Private forum owners are allowed to, essentially, set their own rules. Why, then, should they not also be able to have someone in their forum who has not done anything they feel worth preventing them from participation in this forum? They can no longer harm the public, so the ban is working.
4: As I, again, already noted, forum bans are not always fair or warranted and are subject to potential for extreme bias. When it's questionable whether someone even broke a rule in the first place, why should they be prevented from something that isn't harmful?
5: Consistency. You are allowed to post in team forums still. Why not private forums as well.
6: Along those lines, the reason you are allowed to post in team forums is so that your bad behavior on public forums doesn't prevent you and your team from properly using your dot on the field. If they wanted that impeded, they would have banned you from GLB, not just the forums. However, prevention from participation in private forums excludes any sort of GM forums for teams and whatnot, thus accomplishing the same thing.
Take your pick but I'd say that's a tad more than "ITS ONLY FAIR!"
honestly, i wasn't specifically addressing you nor did i really read through your posts... but i'll jump on here.

1: frankly, the degree to which a punishment is "fitting" is less problematic than your particular theory of punishment. do you think punishment should be rehabilitative, incapacitive, preventative, restorative, retributitive, or pedagogical? it sounds like you're on the angle of retribution, which is easily the most troublesome of the six categories...

(i'll just lump these together to avoid typing up a wall of text. and instead of responding point by point, i'll refer to you to my original point because i think we kind of zoomed past it.)
2-6: yes, these are all very logical (to me) and compelling (to me) reasons... but mostly because i already agree with you. however, these are all adbuctive arguments to fairness... and it's fairly easy to think up just as valid adbuctive arguments to fairness that argue for the opposite side.

i guess that was my point. this isn't the land of analytic or abductive or even analogical reasoning. this is all squarely in the realm of rhetoric, unless you seriously want to unpack all the theories about justice and start arguing about crime and punishment there.


▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲
original post above... but since this thread is now locked, my response to azure's response is below
▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼


Originally posted by Azure Dreams
For number 1, you make a lot of assumptions about my beliefs that are neither here nor there. It is one of only 6 points, and far from the be all end all. Just what I thought up at 3 am quickly. If you think that method of punishment is appropriate, fine, if not, fine. That wasn't the target of my point. WHen I said fitting I meant something very specific. Not "appropriate" or "the best resposne" or "fair" but fitting. In that it fits perfectly with the rime. It prevents him from continuing to commit the crime without lumping on anything extraneous. A directly correlative 1:1 punishment. Can't post appropriately in public forums -> Prevented from posting in public forums.

And I'm sure arguments can be made for 2-6, but they aren't being made. Not all of those points rely heavily on abstract notions of fairness. The notion is present in some form and it's not feasible for it not to be under any circumstances because that's how life works. But its' not as simple as "NO THIS IS FAIR BECAUSE I THINK ITS FAIR SO THEY HAVE TO DO THAT"

I think perhaps the best reason is the vagueness of many, many guidelines, inconsistency with which they are enforced, and, above all, the prevailing bias and subjectivity present in the
moderators whims.
1: i made a "lot of assumptions" about your beliefs? all i did was list the six classic categories for theories of punishment. i made a small guess that your personal theory "sounds like" it's retributive... but after reading your expaination of "fit", it sounds now that you're more on the angle of prevention (note the bolded above).

2-6: let me point out again that i already agree with your policy. if you'd like, i could present you with the equally valid adbuctive arguments to the contrary that i claimed exist... just so long as you don't think i agree with them. and for the record, when you start making claims about "how life works", you really start veering into abductive territory... as if you weren't already squarely there with your claims to fairness (pretty much my entire point).

the best reason for what exactly? hmmm... i'm guessing the reason why i felt you were "zooming past" my original point is the same reason why you think i'm making "a lot of assumptions" (when i'm actually doing no such thing): we're completely speaking past each other here. i was only trying to point out the futility of people using analytical and analogical arguments to hash out this debate... that was all. frankly, all of your very compelling arguments (to me, at least) have done nothing but prove both of our points.

Originally posted by Azure Dreams
Originally posted by turnerhero

Originally posted by Catullus 16


Originally posted by turnerhero



Originally posted by Catullus 16



Originally posted by turnerhero



Well, nothing can be proven, that's why it's called philosophy...you think about things you don't understand and have no real truth about, to attempt to come to some kind of conclusion about whatever it may be...
please don't impugn disciplines you obviously know nothing about.
And you're the obvious expert, eh? Educate me, guru.

read all of http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html and then we can PM <-- a very serious/hopeful offer

[edited to add a more precise link]

I didn't see Pierre Grimes on the list of reads...I may take you up on reading these if time permits sometime...as it stands, trying to work and raise a daughter on my own doesn't let me do whatever I want anymore until she goes to sleep haha

5:00 bed time imo.

Let's see you put a 2 year old to bed at 5 pm and actually have any hope at all...haha...

That's what they made whiskey and ny-quil for.

I should never have kids imo.

I'll say this: you break rules, you get punished. That's a simple tenet to which we can all agree.

Punishments should fit crimes, and there should be an established punishment for each set of crimes, e.g. speeding 10-14 over the speed limit is a $220 fine, class B misdemeanors are a $2000 dollar fine and/or 180 days' probation, and so forth.

Punishments should be concise and transparent; for example, one should know that if they commit X infraction, they would receive X penalty.

Punishments should increase in severity or duration with increased offenses.

Punishments are intended both to penalize the individual and/or to remove them from others; which one ought to be emphasized is a decision for those who mete it.

I don't know anything about Mal, what he did, what his punishment is, or why people are clamoring to "free" him. However, I'm sure the ones who dealt him his judgment kept the above things in mind. If they didn't, well...that doesn't mean his punishment is inadequate; it might even be too lenient. It certainly doesn't mean the slate should be wiped clean, though.

When you break rules, you get punished. When you break polite requests based on moderator discretion, your judgment may vary.

That's a topic for another thread to be locked for some archaic reason. This one isn't about that.

In essence: letting people who are forum banned for any length of time continue to post on private forums they have been invited to harms no one and should be permitted.

Originally posted by dmfa41
I'll say this: you break rules, you get punished. That's a simple tenet to which we can all agree.
Punishments should fit crimes, and there should be an established punishment for each set of crimes, e.g. speeding 10-14 over the speed limit is a $220 fine, class B misdemeanors are a $2000 dollar fine and/or 180 days' probation, and so forth.
Punishments should be concise and transparent; for example, one should know that if they commit X infraction, they would receive X penalty.
Punishments should increase in severity or duration with increased offenses.
Punishments are intended both to penalize the individual and/or to remove them from others; which one ought to be emphasized is a decision for those who mete it.
I don't know anything about Mal, what he did, what his punishment is, or why people are clamoring to "free" him. However, I'm sure the ones who dealt him his judgment kept the above things in mind. If they didn't, well...that doesn't mean his punishment is inadequate; it might even be too lenient. It certainly doesn't mean the slate should be wiped clean, though.

sounds reasonable... but it still doesn't help us decide whether a particular case is indeed an infraction. other than writing a million-page rule book, there's no way to explicitly anticipate every possible scenario... so it will be left to a judge (i.e. a mod or admin) to make a subjective decision.

rarely do the convicted agree with the judge.

Originally posted by Undead Merchant
We pay for the forums though, so we should be allowed to have who we want in them. It does not effect anyone outside of the forum.

This.

Especially since I have separate "sub forums" (that are GLB private forums paid for by me) for our team that a certain someone is on. I like to keep our main team forum uncluttered so I created a sub forum for certain purposes and it's bullshit they can't post in it.

Seriously. I don't see why not. The idea of the forum ban is because said user basically does not "play well with others" or generally just a nuisance. If someone wants that person to participate in their private forum, why not?

Originally posted by JDaniels127
Example:

Prokop isn't permabanned, neither it Boltz...which means that the GLB Forum Police are fairly forgiving.

If you get perma-banned...you shouldn't have been so stupid.

Not the case at all. prokop isn't associated with FFA and such, and therefore is a lot less likely to get banned. Boltz bitches to the mod staff every time he gets insulted. He knows them. He won't get banned every, let alone perma-banned.

It's all about perception. The mods aren't exactly objective. Honestly.

And Jed, this isn't about whether or not I agree with you, because I do. But Malachorn, for example, can't post in any PFs but his own.

Originally posted by Iceman16
Originally posted by JDaniels127

Example:

Prokop isn't permabanned, neither it Boltz...which means that the GLB Forum Police are fairly forgiving.

If you get perma-banned...you shouldn't have been so stupid.

Not the case at all. prokop isn't associated with FFA and such, and therefore is a lot less likely to get banned. Boltz bitches to the mod staff every time he gets insulted. He knows them. He won't get banned every, let alone perma-banned.

It's all about perception. The mods aren't exactly objective. Honestly.

Well it's a little disingenuous to say moderators aren't objective, because part of their job is to use their discretion. These forums are pretty weird and there are a lot of dynamics at play, and things that might fly in one subforum may not fly in another. Considering the mods here aren't paid and aren't trained or anything, I think they do a pretty good job at avoiding biases (if nothing else).

Originally posted by SwagOnLock
Originally posted by Iceman16

Originally posted by JDaniels127


Example:

Prokop isn't permabanned, neither it Boltz...which means that the GLB Forum Police are fairly forgiving.

If you get perma-banned...you shouldn't have been so stupid.

Not the case at all. prokop isn't associated with FFA and such, and therefore is a lot less likely to get banned. Boltz bitches to the mod staff every time he gets insulted. He knows them. He won't get banned every, let alone perma-banned.

It's all about perception. The mods aren't exactly objective. Honestly.

Well it's a little disingenuous to say moderators aren't objective, because part of their job is to use their discretion. These forums are pretty weird and there are a lot of dynamics at play, and things that might fly in one subforum may not fly in another. Considering the mods here aren't paid and aren't trained or anything, I think they do a pretty good job at avoiding biases (if nothing else).

Bull Shit. Did I win something.

I would say some mods avoid Bias, others not so much.