Alosion
Veteran Member
Posts: 589
| Likes: 237
|
Post by Alosion on Jul 16, 2020 22:57:22 GMT
Vouch for mibbzz's reason. He shouldn't be expected to apologize for something he doesn't feel remorse or regret for. The debate of the technicalities on this vague rule can continue on, but I'm vouching here.
|
|
|
|
Post by zekurt on Jul 16, 2020 23:00:50 GMT
This has already been discussed, the cases of the seniors who need to be purged should be reported to IA if it's as important as you and wilee claim it to be. In this thread, it's whataboutism and irrelevant. As of now, the communities interpretation of the policy is fairly unanimous. It's not whataboutism though kurt, when you and I logged into VJ's accounts and publicly shared the materials found in those accounts were we punished in anyway whatsoever? The answer is no, because VJ was not a member of the community as he was permbanned and therefore there was no repercussions for off server behaviour. Pointing to a clear example which was actually much, much worse than the one that happened involving Wilee and Video is showing the past precedence which Wilee was operating on when he made the decision to do so. We both know that VJ's dox was shared a fuck ton, we both know that we both were involved in doing that. If this is what the rules say, then we should be permbanned for that action. The rules haven't changed, they were the same then as they are now. This is a response to zeseryu as well since you both said the exact same things. It's a little different, but I also see where you are coming from. VJ had been rogue permbanned player for many months by the time we breached his accounts, he was pretty clearly not a member of the community, he was hostile towards it. In the case of Nathan, he was very very recently permbanned, was still a member of the discord, and was not a rogue. I stand by my statement of saying if you believe what we did in the past should be punishable according to current interpretation of the policy, then I'm all for it. Report it to IA and have them investigate, and they'll punish us if they must. I still consider what happened years ago to be irrelevant to the current discussion as to actions that occurred not weeks ago. Bringing it up in this thread but neglecting to actually report it is indeed whataboutism. Edit: also, markbyron sanctioned all of our actions |
|
|
|
Post by banteroussor on Jul 16, 2020 23:02:09 GMT
Object, a cunty thing to do. Nathaniel was a cunt, I didn't like him. But I wouldn't go doxing him.
You couldn't be even be bothered to apologise, if you had done that and actually reflected on what you did I may have vouched.
|
|
zeseryu
Veteran Member
Admin Officer
ops rights activist
Posts: 1,181
|
Post by zeseryu on Jul 16, 2020 23:08:05 GMT
This has already been discussed, the cases of the seniors who need to be purged should be reported to IA if it's as important as you and wilee claim it to be. In this thread, it's whataboutism and irrelevant. As of now, the communities interpretation of the policy is fairly unanimous. It's not whataboutism though kurt, when you and I logged into VJ's accounts and publicly shared the materials found in those accounts were we punished in anyway whatsoever? The answer is no, because VJ was not a member of the community as he was permbanned and therefore there was no repercussions for off server behaviour. Pointing to a clear example which was actually much, much worse than the one that happened involving Wilee and Video is showing the past precedence which Wilee was operating on when he made the decision to do so. We both know that VJ's dox was shared a fuck ton, we both know that we both were involved in doing that. If this is what the rules say, then we should be permbanned for that action. The rules haven't changed, they were the same then as they are now. This is a response to zeseryu as well since you both said the exact same things. what happened then is something i have no control over, however, if any admin was to now log onto another users accounts and spread that info then they would be suspended. |
|
mibbzz
Club 4000 Member
Posts: 9,109
| Likes: 12,246
|
Post by mibbzz on Jul 16, 2020 23:17:35 GMT
It's not whataboutism though kurt, when you and I logged into VJ's accounts and publicly shared the materials found in those accounts were we punished in anyway whatsoever? The answer is no, because VJ was not a member of the community as he was permbanned and therefore there was no repercussions for off server behaviour. Pointing to a clear example which was actually much, much worse than the one that happened involving Wilee and Video is showing the past precedence which Wilee was operating on when he made the decision to do so. We both know that VJ's dox was shared a fuck ton, we both know that we both were involved in doing that. If this is what the rules say, then we should be permbanned for that action. The rules haven't changed, they were the same then as they are now. This is a response to zeseryu as well since you both said the exact same things. It's a little different, but I also see where you are coming from. VJ had been rogue permbanned player for many months by the time we breached his accounts, he was pretty clearly not a member of the community, he was hostile towards it. In the case of Nathan, he was very very recently permbanned, was still a member of the discord, and was not a rogue. I stand by my statement of saying if you believe what we did in the past should be punishable according to current interpretation of the policy, then I'm all for it. Report it to IA and have them investigate, and they'll punish us if they must. I still consider what happened years ago to be irrelevant to the current discussion as to actions that occurred not weeks ago. Bringing it up in this thread but neglecting to actually report it is indeed whataboutism. Again, it's not whataboutism to use past historical cases to show the precedence with which this community has operated in the past and the vast departure from that which we see now. It's also very clear that I don't think we should be perm banned for that conduct, so I'm not going to report anything, just as I don't think that Wilee should have been permbanned for this. If you agree with this then feel free to report the dozens of people who shared the information, we both know it was far more than just the two of us and this is just one case. Whether we talk about with VJ, with savnith, marco or any of the other dozens upon dozens of cases in which permbanned members had their doxes shared publicly, permbanning the people sharing that dox has never once happened. Simply hasn't, the policy has always been that individuals permbanned from the server are not members of the server. It doesn't matter if they were permbanned yesterday or permbanned 3 months ago, that's how it has always been. Furthermore, just on the basis of this case alone the punishment does not fit the crime. Did wilee act with malicious intent? The clear answer is that he did not, just as Video did not. I wouldn't apologize for doing what Wilee did, simply would not, just as I wouldn't apologize today for sharing the dox of people like VJ. The REAL difference between this case and the one we both are involved with is the fact we did it with malicious intent, that didn't happen here. |
|
Fleek
Veteran Member
Posts: 3,548
|
Post by Fleek on Jul 16, 2020 23:18:45 GMT
I object.
For people who says wilee shouldn’t be permbanned for doxxing because Nathaniel was permbanned and isn’t considered a part of the community then we shouldn’t suspend marco for his action against Savnith (for you guys who doesn’t know, marco sent a malicious file to Savnith privately on Discord) because Savnith isn’t a member of the community due him being permanently banned.
|
|
Darth
Veteran Member
Server Liaison
Posts: 2,534
| Likes: 1,826
|
Post by Darth on Jul 17, 2020 0:21:21 GMT
Nah doxxing isnt cool. Object Wanting a user permbanned for a non-existant rule isn't cool. Responding to people and telling them they're retarded because they have a differing opinion isn't cool. |
|
mibbzz
Club 4000 Member
Posts: 9,109
| Likes: 12,246
|
Post by mibbzz on Jul 17, 2020 1:13:50 GMT
Wanting a user permbanned for a non-existant rule isn't cool. Responding to people and telling them they're retarded because they have a differing opinion isn't cool. Tbf, he didn't call anyone retarded, just that they sound as such which was pretty fair for someone commenting on a ban appeal that they don't want to read the appeal |
|
xfilez
Veteran Member
paint me like one of your french girls
Posts: 2,667
| Likes: 3,303
|
Post by xfilez on Jul 17, 2020 1:24:14 GMT
Vouch - w/ Steven and Mibbzz
|
|
grntbg
Full Member
Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit.
Posts: 295
|
Post by grntbg on Jul 17, 2020 1:42:55 GMT
Vouch for mibbzz's reason. He shouldn't be expected to apologize for something he doesn't feel remorse or regret for. The debate of the technicalities on this vague rule can continue on, but I'm vouching here. That's one of the main issues with these "ban appeals" considering their acceptance or denial is typically predicated on "if they feel sorry enough" rather than what they actually did and how long it's been since they did it. It's not about appealing your ban, but appealing to the emotions of staff and by extension drafting some apology (and it doesn't need to be said that online apologies are more often than not insincere) which degrades what bans stand for. Vouch. His ban has been "justified" by a policy which doesn't need to be in place; operators and staff shouldn't be responsible for what they do to other players outside of this platform's communication channels. Considering this server was not utilized in order to gain that information, nothing was done which this forum should exercise jurisdiction over. There's no consistent way to enforce this (you're relying on players to leak private discussions) and for all of these reasons I believe that Wilee is undeserving of a permanent ban. |
|
|
|
Post by zekurt on Jul 17, 2020 2:25:48 GMT
His ban has been "justified" by a policy which doesn't need to be in place; operators and staff shouldn't be responsible for what they do to other players outside of this platform's communication channels Then you should make a suggestion to change the rule, because this server typically enforces rules it has in place, and he broke it (According to the Owner and Executive Admin.) |
|
grntbg
Full Member
Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit.
Posts: 295
|
Post by grntbg on Jul 17, 2020 2:32:57 GMT
His ban has been "justified" by a policy which doesn't need to be in place; operators and staff shouldn't be responsible for what they do to other players outside of this platform's communication channels Then you should make a suggestion to change the rule, because this server typically enforces rules it has in place, and he broke it (According to the Owner and Executive Admin.) There's no question that he broke a rule currently embedded in policy (see original post) but it's a bad rule, and for that reason I believe his ban should be reversed. Unbanning a player who broke an active rule doesn't violate this precedent, it's the purpose of "appealing" a ban. |
|
|
|
Post by zekurt on Jul 17, 2020 3:30:38 GMT
Unbanning a player who broke an active rule doesn't violate this precedent, it's the purpose of "appealing" a ban. Not trying to cause an argument or anything, I'd just say I disagree in that appeals are designed for players who were wrongfully banned for a rule they did not break, and people who did break that rule and own up to their mistake. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2020 5:18:06 GMT
Vouch. His ban has been "justified" by a policy which doesn't need to be in place; operators and staff shouldn't be responsible for what they do to other players outside of this platform's communication channels. Considering this server was not utilized in order to gain that information, nothing was done which this forum should exercise jurisdiction over. There's no consistent way to enforce this (you're relying on players to leak private discussions) and for all of these reasons I believe that Wilee is undeserving of a permanent ban. The entire fuckin point of banning people is so they learn not to do it next time, and based on what I've read in his appeal, he didn't learn anything. Mind you this isn't the first time, and some people know him for being the guy that doxes people. I do not want people here that dox anyone period. And it's safe to say that's the majority opinion of this server. There is no consistent way to enforce crime. You have to gather evidence and get tips. And in this case, we got all the evidence and tips we need to prove him guilty. If you don't regret what you did, then you can stay permbanned because you learned not a fuckin thing and you'll probably do it again, despicably if you've already done it multiple times in the past. |
|
grntbg
Full Member
Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit.
Posts: 295
|
Post by grntbg on Jul 17, 2020 5:21:39 GMT
Unbanning a player who broke an active rule doesn't violate this precedent, it's the purpose of "appealing" a ban. Not trying to cause an argument or anything, I'd just say I disagree in that appeals are designed for players who were wrongfully banned for a rule they did not break, and people who did break that rule and own up to their mistake. If that were the case, sections “a” and “d” of question number four of the appeal template wouldn’t be valid. The purpose of an “appeal” in the sense of the law is to reverse a court’s decision, therefore ban appeals should consider reversing the decision of the ban, or deeming the grounds for a ban to be unsuitable. This can be because of length, the discovery of new information, a simple apology, or a simple consensus on the unfeasibility — even if originally rooted in the conduct policy — of the punishment handed to an applicant. To continue with a comparison to real-world decision appeals, they hold the power to redefine interpretations of policy and in my opinion they should be treated as such here. It would only refine the standards we hold punishments to. |
|
