id expect a refund if i paid for a forum and they didnt allow people i invited to post in it
Last edited Jan 20, 2009 09:09:58
Apple Dapple
offline
offline
Originally posted by oldskool
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.
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.
Yukon Don
offline
offline
Originally posted by Boskovic
id expect a refund if i paid for a forum and they didnt allow people i invited to post in it
Wow...then you didn't read the TOS
id expect a refund if i paid for a forum and they didnt allow people i invited to post in it
Wow...then you didn't read the TOS
Apple Dapple
offline
offline
Originally posted by Catullus 16
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.
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.
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.
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.
Apple Dapple
offline
offline
Originally posted by Yukon Don
Originally posted by Boskovic
id expect a refund if i paid for a forum and they didnt allow people i invited to post in it
Wow...then you didn't read the TOS
few people do.
Originally posted by Boskovic
id expect a refund if i paid for a forum and they didnt allow people i invited to post in it
Wow...then you didn't read the TOS
few people do.
Apple Dapple
offline
offline
By the way, let's go with my own little anecdotal example for the point about moderators.
I've been banned twice. In both cases, the banning mod rescinded his punishment the next day (before the ban was finished) because he realized it wasn't fair.
I was still prevented from posting in private forums to gameplan and discuss roster moves, etc. for the teams with which I'm involved. Though no deservingness of my own. Mods need to use discretion, but that doesn't mean they don't fuck up.
Also of note: The two mods in question are two of the best mods GLB has, and they still made mistakes. Some of the more childish, shitty mods are libel to abuse their power on whim. The difference being, if you get an unfair 7 day ban from them, they aren't going to go back and remove the ban, in all likelihood. Your only recourse would be to PM support about it, which, in my experience, is most likely going to get you no answer ever. If you're lucky, 3 days after you PM support (half the ban), you'll receive something like "I'm sorry you think it's unfair"
In that instance you serve a 7 day ban for no good reason. That means you miss 4 games, or a quarter of your schedule.
I've been banned twice. In both cases, the banning mod rescinded his punishment the next day (before the ban was finished) because he realized it wasn't fair.
I was still prevented from posting in private forums to gameplan and discuss roster moves, etc. for the teams with which I'm involved. Though no deservingness of my own. Mods need to use discretion, but that doesn't mean they don't fuck up.
Also of note: The two mods in question are two of the best mods GLB has, and they still made mistakes. Some of the more childish, shitty mods are libel to abuse their power on whim. The difference being, if you get an unfair 7 day ban from them, they aren't going to go back and remove the ban, in all likelihood. Your only recourse would be to PM support about it, which, in my experience, is most likely going to get you no answer ever. If you're lucky, 3 days after you PM support (half the ban), you'll receive something like "I'm sorry you think it's unfair"
In that instance you serve a 7 day ban for no good reason. That means you miss 4 games, or a quarter of your schedule.
Yukon Don
offline
offline
Just to add another anecdote, I've been on GLB since April...so 8 months. I am a very regular contributor to the suggestions forum, as well as league forums. However in 8 months with 6-8 hours per day spent in the forums I've yet to have an issue with a moderator, or receive a ban...heck I haven't even been warned.
My point?
It is quite possible, really even easy, to get along with the leadership in the forums if you choose to.
My point?
It is quite possible, really even easy, to get along with the leadership in the forums if you choose to.
dmfa41
offline
offline
Originally posted by Yukon Don
It is quite possible, really even easy, to get along with the leadership in the forums if you choose to.
Quoted for truth.
If you break the rules, you break the rules; however, even judges and juries are fallible. If a mod blows it on a suspension, he ought to rescind it, and given Azure Dreams' anecdote, it appears they most often do. If a moderator is proper in his judgment and the violator persists in his innocence or continues to deny it, I wouldn't be surprised if a moderator rescinds a ban out of prevention of annoyance.
However, with the recent increase in administrators and Pallow's fairly-recent position over the moderators, I think (and hope) the Support department ought to be able to iron out these disputes more successfully between moderators and users who violate the rules.
People can say that support is worthless or slow or always side with the moderators; have your opinions, but I imagine there are many such claims and that appellate courts tend to side with their subordinate judges over the defendant in state cases.
It is quite possible, really even easy, to get along with the leadership in the forums if you choose to.
Quoted for truth.
If you break the rules, you break the rules; however, even judges and juries are fallible. If a mod blows it on a suspension, he ought to rescind it, and given Azure Dreams' anecdote, it appears they most often do. If a moderator is proper in his judgment and the violator persists in his innocence or continues to deny it, I wouldn't be surprised if a moderator rescinds a ban out of prevention of annoyance.
However, with the recent increase in administrators and Pallow's fairly-recent position over the moderators, I think (and hope) the Support department ought to be able to iron out these disputes more successfully between moderators and users who violate the rules.
People can say that support is worthless or slow or always side with the moderators; have your opinions, but I imagine there are many such claims and that appellate courts tend to side with their subordinate judges over the defendant in state cases.
oldskool
offline
offline
Originally posted by Yukon Don
Just to add another anecdote, I've been on GLB since April...so 8 months. I am a very regular contributor to the suggestions forum, as well as league forums. However in 8 months with 6-8 hours per day spent in the forums I've yet to have an issue with a moderator, or receive a ban...heck I haven't even been warned.
My point?
It is quite possible, really even easy, to get along with the leadership in the forums if you choose to.
I've been here since March, and I've never been banned or warned. I guess the extra month has given me added intellect, as I'm not naive enough to think that "I have no issues with moderators" correlates to "nobody ever has issues with them".
I'll summarize your point and your stay in GLB in one fell swoop:
It's easy to get along with someone who never disagrees with you.
Again, not the point of the thread. Public bans shouldn't carry over to private forums, as you must be INVITED there and since they are INVITED obviously the person who owns that forum does not have a problem with them posting there and that's the only opinion that should matter on the subject.
Just to add another anecdote, I've been on GLB since April...so 8 months. I am a very regular contributor to the suggestions forum, as well as league forums. However in 8 months with 6-8 hours per day spent in the forums I've yet to have an issue with a moderator, or receive a ban...heck I haven't even been warned.
My point?
It is quite possible, really even easy, to get along with the leadership in the forums if you choose to.
I've been here since March, and I've never been banned or warned. I guess the extra month has given me added intellect, as I'm not naive enough to think that "I have no issues with moderators" correlates to "nobody ever has issues with them".
I'll summarize your point and your stay in GLB in one fell swoop:
It's easy to get along with someone who never disagrees with you.
Again, not the point of the thread. Public bans shouldn't carry over to private forums, as you must be INVITED there and since they are INVITED obviously the person who owns that forum does not have a problem with them posting there and that's the only opinion that should matter on the subject.
happylittletrees
offline
offline
Originally posted by oldskool
Originally posted by Yukon Don
Just to add another anecdote, I've been on GLB since April...so 8 months. I am a very regular contributor to the suggestions forum, as well as league forums. However in 8 months with 6-8 hours per day spent in the forums I've yet to have an issue with a moderator, or receive a ban...heck I haven't even been warned.
My point?
It is quite possible, really even easy, to get along with the leadership in the forums if you choose to.
I've been here since March, and I've never been banned or warned. I guess the extra month has given me added intellect, as I'm not naive enough to think that "I have no issues with moderators" correlates to "nobody ever has issues with them".
I'll summarize your point and your stay in GLB in one fell swoop:
It's easy to get along with someone who never disagrees with you.
Again, not the point of the thread. Public bans shouldn't carry over to private forums, as you must be INVITED there and since they are INVITED obviously the person who owns that forum does not have a problem with them posting there and that's the only opinion that should matter on the subject.
let me help you with something, forum bans are a PUNISHMENT, why should you get to post in any forum if your being punished for something you did ON THE FORUMS? I am really having trouble understanding why you guys dont get that. not being able to post in PF's you don't own and team forums is part of the PUNISHMENT
Originally posted by Yukon Don
Just to add another anecdote, I've been on GLB since April...so 8 months. I am a very regular contributor to the suggestions forum, as well as league forums. However in 8 months with 6-8 hours per day spent in the forums I've yet to have an issue with a moderator, or receive a ban...heck I haven't even been warned.
My point?
It is quite possible, really even easy, to get along with the leadership in the forums if you choose to.
I've been here since March, and I've never been banned or warned. I guess the extra month has given me added intellect, as I'm not naive enough to think that "I have no issues with moderators" correlates to "nobody ever has issues with them".
I'll summarize your point and your stay in GLB in one fell swoop:
It's easy to get along with someone who never disagrees with you.
Again, not the point of the thread. Public bans shouldn't carry over to private forums, as you must be INVITED there and since they are INVITED obviously the person who owns that forum does not have a problem with them posting there and that's the only opinion that should matter on the subject.
let me help you with something, forum bans are a PUNISHMENT, why should you get to post in any forum if your being punished for something you did ON THE FORUMS? I am really having trouble understanding why you guys dont get that. not being able to post in PF's you don't own and team forums is part of the PUNISHMENT
Last edited Jan 20, 2009 12:31:54
dmfa41
offline
offline
Only banning people from public forums seems to be a fairly weak punishment and one that shouldn't even be given. If someone were to really be punished, they ought to be banned from all of them. If you're punished, you're punished.
Paying for a game or part of one does not entitle someone to do whatever they want while in it. We are expected to know the terms and conditions when we hit the "pay" button, knowing full well that we're required to abide by them. Paying only reaffirms the rules; it doesn't put one above them.
Paying for a game or part of one does not entitle someone to do whatever they want while in it. We are expected to know the terms and conditions when we hit the "pay" button, knowing full well that we're required to abide by them. Paying only reaffirms the rules; it doesn't put one above them.
Krunchy
offline
offline
Originally posted by dmfa41
Only banning people from public forums seems to be a fairly weak punishment and one that shouldn't even be given. If someone were to really be punished, they ought to be banned from all of them. If you're punished, you're punished.
Stupid argument of the year award.
Only banning people from public forums seems to be a fairly weak punishment and one that shouldn't even be given. If someone were to really be punished, they ought to be banned from all of them. If you're punished, you're punished.
Stupid argument of the year award.
happylittletrees
offline
offline
Originally posted by Krunchy
Originally posted by dmfa41
Only banning people from public forums seems to be a fairly weak punishment and one that shouldn't even be given. If someone were to really be punished, they ought to be banned from all of them. If you're punished, you're punished.
Stupid argument of the year award.
guy who lacks discipline ^
Originally posted by dmfa41
Only banning people from public forums seems to be a fairly weak punishment and one that shouldn't even be given. If someone were to really be punished, they ought to be banned from all of them. If you're punished, you're punished.
Stupid argument of the year award.
guy who lacks discipline ^
dmfa41
offline
offline
Originally posted by Krunchy
Originally posted by dmfa41
Only banning people from public forums seems to be a fairly weak punishment and one that shouldn't even be given. If someone were to really be punished, they ought to be banned from all of them. If you're punished, you're punished.
Stupid argument of the year award.
Well, you would know about receiving bans far better than I would. I don't see how a public forum ban would deter anybody from anything; it seems like a fairly anemic punishment. I imagine most people who get banned from this site do most of their interacting with others in GLB in private forums, or could if they wished.
Originally posted by dmfa41
Only banning people from public forums seems to be a fairly weak punishment and one that shouldn't even be given. If someone were to really be punished, they ought to be banned from all of them. If you're punished, you're punished.
Stupid argument of the year award.
Well, you would know about receiving bans far better than I would. I don't see how a public forum ban would deter anybody from anything; it seems like a fairly anemic punishment. I imagine most people who get banned from this site do most of their interacting with others in GLB in private forums, or could if they wished.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
